CleanMPG Coaxes 32 MPG from Ford F-150 EcoBoost Pickup

Cleanmpg-1-560
Photo courtesy of CleanMPG.com

The hypermiling mavens from CleanMPG.com have completed a 2,500-mile cross-country trip in a 2011 Ford F-150 SuperCrew using just three tanks of gas. They squeezed an astonishing 32.281 miles per gallon from the EcoBoost-powered half-ton.

During our recent twin F-150 EcoBoost road test, we averaged 21 mpg with an empty truck. So how'd CleanMPG wring another 11 mpg from the 365 horsepower, 420 pounds-feet of torque gasoline twin-turbo direct-injection V-6? By driving the most efficient configuration slowly.

CleanMPG drove a two-wheel drive model from California to Georgia with a conservative 3.15 rear axle for maximum fuel economy. That doesn't mean they didn't use the truck like it was meant to be used. There were five adults in the pickup for most of the journey plus a cargo box full of camping gear and supplies that pushed the F-150's gross vehicle weight to 7,120 pounds -- 20 pounds over its 7,100-pound GVWR.

Here's a look at CleanMPG's observed Interstate highway steady state fuel economy at different speeds:

  • 70-mph - 22.3 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
  • 60-mph - 25.5 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
  • 50-mph - 31.6 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
  • 45-mph - 33.9 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)
  • 40-mph - 32.6 mpg (6th gear with transmission's torque converter locked)

Another interesting fact -- CleanMPG squeezed 36 gallons of gasoline into the F-150's 26 gallon factory fuel system by following a slow fill approach that utilized all of the gas vapor space in the tank and fuel lines. This required up to an hour to trickle fuel into the truck.

For more details and a full recap of the trip, head over to CleanMPG.

Comments

Ok I think the saying goes THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACMENT and if you were too fill your tank like that you would ruin you evaporation canister and damage the whole system, if you don't beleive me you have never read you owners manual, and on the subject of the lower ride hight of the chevy-GMC if you were too read the owners manual it say that you can remove the air dam, just remove the 2 fasteners at each end and use a flat tip tool to push foward on the slots and you can remove the panel for better ground clearance. But if you were to check under the diffs. you would find more clearence wher it realy counts on the Chevy. Please don't get me wrong I own one of each, a Chevy, Ford, and Dodge truck, and I like them all, one is a 2011 F-150 EB 4X4 8' hvydty XLT, black, nice truck, only have 200 miles so far so can't realy say how good it runs, but so far so good, the Chevy is a 2011 Z-71 ext. cab Black 5.3, also very nice truck, but I know it won't run as fast as EB, but rides very nice and is great on the beach. Last is a 2003 Dodge Dakota reg cab short bed 4X4, 4.7 V-8 5sp 3.92 limt slp, this truck is my toy, goes like hell I bet it would give the EB a good go, the only problems so far, is rear brakes, and ball joints on the Dakota, and I drive that truck HARD in the air over dunes, lots of blacks stipes on the road, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, gear rubber, so you see I like all American trucks. Would not be caught dead in a turd, tachomly, _ronter, tightin ect. NOT REAL TRUCKS American all the way.

Bob, I swear to you. The Suburban that I rented does not have 4-low. I actually had two of them because I took one back as it had mouldy carpet. Neither of the two Suburbans had 4 -LOW.
The dial shows 2 High, Auto, 4 Hi. - That's it. I looked it up on the Internet to see what the deal was, it turns out that GM uses two transfer cases. The cheaper one does not lave low range, you have to pay extra to have it.

Seriously, how many people take a 1/2 ton Suburban anywhere you'd use low range? For all three people that do the two speed transfer case is a $100 option.

Well Alex, you are right. Only the base Subruban LS model doesn't come standard with 4LO. Everything else besides the LS model has 4LO as well as 2HI, AUTO 4WDR, HI and Neutral.

@Lou,
I totally agree with you. It is also pretty impressive mpg given the fact that they had 5 people in the truck (some of them were quite large), 1,000 lbs in the bed and it was a supercrew.

If they just wanted the best fuel economy, they could have just used a smaller truck, only one person, and nothing in the bed. FuelEconomy.gov says fuel economy can be reduced 1 to 2% for every 100 lbs extra you have in the truck. Do the math.

This report vindicates what everyonehas been saying. The F-150 the interior passenger room, cargo bed space, and fuel economy the others can't touch. Cheers.

@Bob, this one is an LT with leather, dual zone CC, sunroof, DVD, - no 4-lo :(

This test proves to me that if you want:
1) a roomy cab
2) large cargo box
3) fuel efficiency
The F-150 is hard to beat and is best in class.


Looks like Ford should use Judas Priest's song "Turbo Lover" in their marketing;)

Peolpe realize they would get even more than the 33.9 if they go just under 45 mph, but I'd like to say we could just go 50 mph and get remarkable mpg of 31, and you are getting where you want faster. They never mention wheth the windows are up w/ a/c on. An hour to fill up is real dedication.

I am one of the drivers who participated in the challenge, and I wanted to share a few things with those who are commenting here.

- The purpose of the challenge is to show the fuel economy potential of the EcoBoost engine and how Ford's goal of best-in-class or among-the-best fuel economy in each vehicle segment is realized with this new engine.

- The trip distance was well over 2500 miles, and that third fillup by the Atlantic was a "short tank" because we had filled up the day before near Macon, GA. Total fuel consumed was just under 78 gallons, or 26 (rated tank cap) x 3, although my cardiovascular system could never withstand the stress of driving down to the last .015 gallons in the vast Texas desert.

- We did indeed fill the 26 gallon tank with 36 gallons of fuel. Fillups didn't quite take an hour, although we were at the station for an hour just because we (or at least I) needed the time to stretch the legs, since the trip segments were rather long.

- What isn't mentioned in the writeup here is that the first 'tank' - from Los Angeles to Amarillo - was a beast because of very strong headwinds (over 30mph), and temperatures in AZ and NM that were in the 50s by day and low 20s at night. Yes, we drove until about 11pm those first two days. I read some where who want to know what mileage you get at 75mph? Well, I drove 50mph into a 25mph headwind, up 6000 feet in elevation, with the truck loaded near GVWR, and turned in 26.8mpg.

- If GM wants to know what a Silverado 5.3L AFM truck would get under the same conditions, tell their people to contact Wayne at CleanMPG and talk it over. But my father in law has a 2011 Silverado 5.3L AFM and his tank averages are in the high teens. It can deliver much more, and if GM wants to know how much more, we can answer that question for them. I have more vacation time available, GM and RAM, so whaddaya say?

- I did not receive any money or other compensation from Ford to participate in this fuel economy challenge. I paid for my own food and slept in a tent just about every night (hence the word 'Adventure' in the challenge title). I spent a week of my vacation time to be a part of it. My motivation

- The hope that some drivers will see what is possible with modern pickups (and indeed all vehicles) and examine their own commute and driving habits and begin to look for ways to reduce their fuel consumption. In America - Land of the Free - you are free to give your pickup a Brooklyn Tuneup every time the traffic light turns green, and drive at 80+mph when permitted. But it begs the question - Do you really want to send $4000 (based on 15k/yr, 15mpg, $4/gal) of your hard-earned money annually to the middle east so the OPEC bandits can take yet another treasure-bath?

- I own both GM and Chrysler vehicles, and no Ford products - so I am in no way biased. With that in mind, I am impressed with what Ford offers in the F-150 EcoBoost (well over EPA highway mpg going uphill in gale force winds hauling full GVWR of five comfortable passengers and the bed packed to the top).

@Chris: Thanks!

@Chris,

Many thanks! You post is greatly appreciated.

Considering my Uncle averages 13.8 mpg, doing mostly highway driving, with his EB; I highly doubt they got 32.

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl whose father has one, and says he gets good mileage....

@NYTV

When your uncle becomes an automotive journalist and writes up a full report on how he drives and what kinda of MPG he gets doing so...No one really cares what kinda of MPG he gets.

What's a matter Nate? Don't like what Alex's Uncle gets in his Ecoboost because it doesn't serve your argument? Like Chris said, it all depends on how you drive a vehicle that will ultimately determine your mpg.

Driven at 70 miles per hour the Ecoboost got 22mpg, driven at 40 miles an hour 32. I still don't know anyone driving on the highway that will drive 40 or 45 miles per hour but it's nice to know what you can get if you slow down to 40.

@NYTV
Quote - "Considering my Uncle averages 13.8 mpg, doing mostly highway driving, with his EB; I highly doubt they got 32."

You are correct. We didn't get 32mpg.

We got almost 32.3mpg.

And many of the drivers who contribute to CleanMPG have distant memories of getting only 13.8mpg in their own vehicles. The secret to changing "13.8" to "31.8" is just below your right ankle. And you can encourage your uncle is read the full blog of the cross-country trip and read the tutorials that explain how to improve fuel economy in whatever you drive.

It is understood that nobody is going to get 32mpg in gridlocked Manhattan, and they are also not going to get 32mpg driving at the upper speed limits we saw in the desert southwest, unless you're driving a Prius. What makes this challenge drive noteworthy is the fact that it demonstrates that the F-150 EcoBoost can do it, while moving over 3-1/2 tons across the country within legal speed limits, even when temperatures are below freezing, winds are howling, and all the big rigs are crawling up the mountain pass one lane to the right with their hazard flashers on.

On my test drive, i got about 19-20 highway with a 4x4 Lariat crew, 6.5' bed, and 3.73 rear end. That was doing 70mph. I think somethings wrong with the truck if he is only getting 13.8. JohnDeere Farmer gets better than that when he is towing with his EcoBoost. Given the configuration that Cleanmpg used, their results are definitely believable. It does miss the point of the EPA ratings though, which is not necessarily to show what you CAN get, but it allows people to COMPARE vehicles driven under the same set of conditions.

Maybe NYTV's Uncle was driving in 4x4 in the winter, as we all know that no one drives 2 wheel drive trucks in North America except Media hacks and Ford minions trying to make the EB 3.5 look good.

Great story! Very impressive!

Thank you, www.pickuptrucks.com, and Chris!

Its nice to see what the truck is capable of, if you drive 75 MPH on the highway like me the 5.0 is going to get better economy at those speeds.

Well Lou, for once you said something that I can agree with. Two whell drive trucks are driven to make the ecoboost look good.

Any vehicle can get milage when you hypermile them. Anyone knows that when you drive 45 vs 75 you will get much better gas milage when you slow down.

@ Bob - you obviously missed the sarcasm.

@Lou @Bob

Quote - "...we all know that no one drives 2 wheel drive trucks in North America except Media hacks and Ford minions trying to make the EB 3.5 look good."

My brother has a Silverado HD 2500 2wd ext cab long bed. No need for 4wd in the suburbs.

The 4wd version of the F-150 challenge truck gives up 1.4mpg highway on the unadjusted EPA highway rating (29.5 vs 30.9 mpg), so there is no reason to think that the 4WD version wouldn't get within 1-2mpg of the 32.28mpg final result.

It's not what someone drives, it's how they drive it - and that's what the CleanMPG challenge demonstrated. Given more favorable conditions (it was flurrying east of Albuquerque), the 4wd could probably close in on the same mpg number.

The challenge drive planning was well underway last Autumn, and the schedule was set in early Feb before gas prices started "climbing the Matterhorn". Take the numbers for what they are worth, and readers who feel the result is not realistic are free to dismiss the article as propaganda or ad-copy. Whatever it is, I have to say I really enjoyed the drive and the truck exceeded expectations. And hopefully some readers will take some interest in our fuel economy numbers and will work toward reducing their own consumption.

Today's pickups are marvels of engineering, and last week's drive demonstrates what a certain crew cab 2wd truck can deliver on America's highways. The F-150 with EcoBoost wasn't the first pickup Wayne at CleanMPG tested, and it probably won't be the last. But each truck delivered mileage above "EPA highway", even when driven at speeds referenced in prior user comments here.

Considering the following:
- The curb weight of the test truck is very close to that of the 1976 "last of the land barges" Cadillac Fleetwood.
- The EcoBoost has more than double the old 500cid big block's horsepower and more torque.
- The EPA estimates are roughly double those of the old Caddy, bearing in mind that the 1976 numbers were rounded off actual dynamometer results, so you need to compare them to today's raw unadjusted dynamometer numbers rather than window sticker ratings. Comparing these apples to apples, the F-150 EcoBoost uses half the gas of the old Fleetwood.

For truck aficionados reading all the great content here at pickuptrucks.com, this is certainly noteworthy in light of current fuel costs.

Hay Chris, great to hear your thoughts and opinions. Now run the test with a 4wheel drive truck not a two wheel drive with 3.15 rear axle ratio that hardly anyone drives. Run the test at normal highway speeds of say 65 or 70 miles an hour and report the results. I agree Chris, the Ecoboost is very impressive and can do alot of things well.

Now run the same trip with 4 wheel drive trucks and this time run it with a GM and a Dodge and report the results.

I love competition no matter what the sport. Motor cycles, snowmobiles, cars, trucks, nascar, college football, you name it, I love competition.

Just how HIGH was the tire pressure?

It is highly unlikely that the torque converter is fully locked up at 40mph in 6th gear. It is more likely that continuous torque converter slip mode is used.

Now if Ford would get the ZF 8 speed automatic, then the tradeoff of mileage versus performance is virtually eliminated.

@Chris - I was being sarcastic (not at you but at Bob)
my apologies.
Another victim of collateral damage in the war with Bob.
Bob keeps bringing up the 4x2 comment all over the place insinuating that Ford and the media are running biased tests to make the EB 3.5 look good.

I would suspect for many, if not most people, 4x4 is a luxury item like power windows, and A/C. I have no issues with 4x2 trucks. Never have, never will.

@ Chris - does the CleanMPG site list hypermiling strategies in a specific window?
All I seemed to find were blogs.
Thanks for the input.
I look foreward to more stories from CleanMPG and yourself.

@ bob WHO CARES!!! Nowhere in the article did anyone compare the ecoboost to Greatest MPG engine ever created 5.3 until you chimed in! Do you know why these nice people tested the ecoboost instead of THE ALMIGHTY 5.3? IT'S OLD!!!My dad had a 81 caddy that would shut down from 8 cylinders, to 6 cylinders, to 4 cylinders. It would often show 60-70 mpg while on 4 cylinders. While coasting down hill! Maybe I should go to every article posted on this site and repeat that like a broken record. Wait I have this special gift called "insight". It allows me to know that nobody would care, everyone would get sick and tired of hearing it, and eventually start to HATE MY EVER LIVING GUTS, and Wish I would just take an overdose of STFU pills! I rarely read chevy articles, because I could care less about them. Maybe if they develop a new or slightly interesting vehicle I would. If I do read a Chevy article, I do just that. I read it and go on to the next one. I don't try to convince the chevy fans who are reading post that Ford is better, and I don't make irrelevant post just to inflame or start arguments. "insight" My dad also used the term common sense in the same context. So I have written it! So it will make no difference! "insight" I also believe I noticed in one of your many rambling post you mentioned driving a Malibu? Who makes a truck called a Malibu? ;-)

I found the hyper-miling tips on their website.
The thing I found interesting is that some of the tips are sound strategies for winter driving:
1.Do not accelerate quickly or brake heavily
2.Avoid driving at higher speeds
3.Maintain your Automobile
4.Three Lights out or distant Anticipatory Focus: When driving in any environment, continuously scan the road far ahead looking for situations or obstacles which may impede your steady state progress.
5.Driving w/out Brakes (or Driving w/ Buffers): In its simplest form, you drive as if you do not have brakes.
6.Rabbit Timing - You want to have any traffic around you (the Rabbit) trip the weight sensor before you are anywhere near that light
7. Smart braking - try not to brake on inclines. Use a ballance of momentum and inclne to scrub off speed. In the winter you usually will spin out if you stop and try to get going again.
Ridge riding is a good idea, but in the winter you often get better traction by staying out of the smooth heavily used part of the road (more commonly known as ruts. LOL)

As far as trying to drive on level ground. The only way I can fix that one is move to the prairies ;)

I'm definately going to try these tips.
Bob will crap himself if I get better MPG with my 5.4 than his super efficient best engine of all times 5.3.

@Chris: I know you mentioned that you were going 50 mph - is that the speed everybody drove at? Did you use Cruise control? Ridge Running? Drafting?

What special techniques did you use to get this mileage, the blog doesn't seem to say. Everybody knows that travelling at 70 is going to use more fuel than at 50 but there's a price/benefit that people want to know. I could justify going 60 instead of 70 for example if it saved me 5 mpg, but if going 50 only does 6 mpg better than going 70, that's not worth it.

I'm still underwhlemed. The results are meaningless to 99.9% of potential customers since few would ever consider being a 50 mph driving nuisance when freeway speeds are 70 to 75mph and others are driving over 80mph.
.

@Lou
"Does the CleanMPG site list hypermiling strategies in a specific window?"
...
"I found the hyper-miling tips on their website."

As you found, the site's main page has that 'Beating the EPA' article at top right. To save you some reading time, I will say that the test truck responded very well to 'driving with constant engine load' and 'driving with buffers'.
And your 5.4 will respond very well to the techniques you noted in your post above. Keep the engine rpm low and road speeds and throttle position steady.

"Bob keeps bringing up the 4x2 comment all over the place insinuating that Ford and the media are running biased tests to make the EB 3.5 look good."

It's my understanding that Wayne contacted Ford and requested a truck with that specific configuration. Ford gave him what he asked for, and off we went to the west coast for a week of swollen ankles and heartburn from fast food and carbonated beverages. The truck wasn't massaged or tweaked by Ford, and the concept behind the challenge was to drive a truck that you could order and purchase from your local dealer, and then see what the truck offers when efficient driving techniques are used, even when that truck is loaded to its design limit.

@Bob
"Now run the same trip with 4 wheel drive trucks and this time run it with a GM and a Dodge and report the results."

That might be a very revealing drive. Who knows if GM and/or Chrysler's Ram division would provide test trucks with specific matching configurations. And to complicate things, coordinating the schedules of seven people from different areas of North America was a miracle we can only hope to be able to repeat. Those decisions are not mine to make, but I would certainly enjoy participating in that type of test.

@Alton (to 'Bob')
"I also believe I noticed in one of your many rambling post you mentioned driving a Malibu? Who makes a truck called a Malibu? ;-)"

We have photos of the F-150 EcoBoost along the cliffs of the PCH in Malibu (California). Does that count? :-)

@ Chris surely not! By merely referencing that, now there could be vicious rumors of bob driving an EcoBoost hauling a malibu! Can you imagine the inflammatory response that sort of comment could evoke from bob. I don't know bob personally, but I got a feeling he would rather push his chevy with THE ALMIGHTY 5.3 than to drive a lowly, pathetic, media hyped EcoBoost. And he would still get 1-2 more mpg pushing the 5.3 than anyone pushing any other brand truck ;-) (probably due to the 5.3 deactivating one of the legs required for pushing when on flat ground and during downhill situations.)

Yes. The Eco lovers can listen to Turbo Lover by Priest. The negatards with oudated models can listen to "hey jealousy" by the Gin Blossoms in their vehicles.

@ bob, Chris, and anyone who read my 1st post. I sincerely apologize. I made a huge error and falsely accused bob of driving a mailbu. Upon further investigation, it was an impala. As I did admit I have very limited knowledge of chevy products, especially cars, and I honestly could not tell one from the other if they were sitting side by side. My bad bob.

@Rick
"Chris: I know you mentioned that you were going 50 mph - is that the speed everybody drove at? Did you use Cruise control? Ridge Running? Drafting?
What special techniques did you use to get this mileage, the blog doesn't seem to say. Everybody knows that travelling at 70 is going to use more fuel than at 50 but there's a price/benefit that people want to know. I could justify going 60 instead of 70 for example if it saved me 5 mpg, but if going 50 only does 6 mpg better than going 70, that's not worth it."

Speeds varied based on road conditions and terrain, and I don't remember any segments involving speeds near or above 70. Depending on your location, 50mph would be a good place to start in the search for optimal fuel economy.

Cruise control was never used during the challenge drive. It was used 'the day after' to measure steady state speed fuel economy and noted in this article.

Ridge riding was used on those roads where the road surface was rutted and rough from years of commercial truck traffic.

CleanMPG drivers never condone drafting - which is a euphemism for tailgating, and is very dangerous at highway speeds. References to 'traffic side draft' describe taking advantage of wake turbulence from large vehicles racing by in the passing lane to get a little boost, and that is unrelated to tailgating.

Regarding going 60 instead of 70 or 50 instead of 70: The numbers in the article above tell the story. Using 50mph as a baseline, the truck returned 31.6mpg. Bump to 60mph, and you lose about 6mpg. Head from 50mph to 70mph and you're down 9.3mpg, which means 30% lower fuel economy. No testing was done beyond 70 because that was the speed limit on the stretch of road we used. The question of "is it worth it" to drive at 50mph is one only you can answer based on the fuel cost vs travel time equation.

More important than interstate speeds, whether 50 or 70 or more, the real room for improvement for the vast majority of pickup truck owners lies in the urban and suburban routes. That's the 'anticipatory focus' and 'rabbit timing' you read a little about. And that's where you see a real payoff because fuel savings are significant yet the trip time is essentially the same. In simplest terms, you replace the zoom-stop-zoom-stop-zoom-stop with go-coast-go-coast-go-coast, rolling up to red lights so they go green before you arrive rather than racing up to them and then stomping on the brake pedal to wait for the green. Does it work? Wayne exceeded the overall trip-result mpg in a segment that included a traffic tie-up in Atlanta. I think that's a "yes". :)

@Alton
"By merely referencing that, now there could be vicious rumors of bob driving an EcoBoost hauling a malibu! Can you imagine the inflammatory response that sort of comment could evoke from bob. I don't know bob personally, but I got a feeling he would rather push his chevy with THE ALMIGHTY 5.3 than to drive a lowly, pathetic, media hyped EcoBoost. And he would still get 1-2 more mpg pushing the 5.3 than anyone pushing any other brand truck ;-) (probably due to the 5.3 deactivating one of the legs required for pushing when on flat ground and during downhill situations.)

We all know how internet rumors can get out of control. Less than three days after the challenge completed, I am already growing EcoBoobs and may or may not be wearing EgoBoots. You are incorrect in your theory that the 5.3 shuts down one leg of the person pushing the truck to get 1-2 more mpg's when when engine is off. In fact, the 5.3 shuts down half the pancreas of the person pushing the Silverado, enabling significant reductions in the amount of glucose burned while pushing the truck. Of course, that can also lead to hypoglycemia, which features symptoms such as trembling, confusion and short term memory loss.
And... I will let you take over from here to elaborate. :-)

By the way, no offense to anyone - I had to post because the deactivated leg reference made me laugh.

nice job guys this is very helpful to all drivers

So you say that you used 3 tanks for a total of 78 gallons. My math says 26x3= 78, so you didn't put no 36 gallons in the tank. You also probably didn't run it to empty so you might have gotten 28 gallons in the tank. BIG DEAL, not even close to 36 gallons.

Two, driving the way you drove is a menace and a danger to others. If its a two lane road, stay in the right and thats fine but if it's a one lane, either speed up or get the heck out of the way

Some of you hypermilers are hyper stupid. Take off the mirrors, solid hubcaps, blah,blah, blah. And who wants a truck with a 3.15 or 3.31 rear end- its a truck not a car

@Bob

Exscuse you? Was I even talking to you? I don't think so...I haven't even dignified one of your ridiculos claims with a response until now. I know you don't like me and I certinal don't like you. But really, your just trying to pick a fight with me...Why? So you can get another comment thread shut down?

Personally I don't care what the Ecoboost's avarages...I'm more of a 5.0L man myself. And unlike most people, I'm not to greatly concerned with what kinda of mileage my pickup gets because I know that my pickup will never get ''great'' mileage.

At least I can be honest about what my intent and expectations are with my truck...Your so busy trying to figure out how to configure a 5.3L to compare to the Ecoboost you've failed to realize its no comparison. No matter what you say, or what you do the Ecoboost will ALWAYS get better real world mileage and perform 10 times better than the 5.3L does.

And before you go all hell bent saying crap like, well we could just slam Twin Turbos on the 5.3L and it will kill the Ecoboost!...Oh ya, do it...I DARE YOU...Then watch Ford slap Twin Turbos on their 5.0L and watch it kick the snot out of the 5.3L.

@ Frank I agree i do not think it is safe to drive down the highway at 40 MPH when the speed limit is 55 MPH, i see a lot of older people doing it and it causes a lot of havoc, i have no problem with people driving the speed limit and staying in the right lane all people need to do is pay attention to there surroundings and not hold back everyone else, i feel FE need to come from the vehicle manufacturers and some drivers need to learn how to drive properly i agree speed kills but so does someone driving slow and not paying attention and holding everyone up

@ Chris can't hardly type for laughing so hard. That is hilarious! That really made my morning. Great post.

It sounds like some people are a little hurt from people comparing their "tried and true" V8 vs. Ford's V6.

It sounds like some people are hurt by people comparing Ford's supercrew cab vs Chevy's little boy cab.

It sounds like some people are hurt by people comaring Ford's large pickup bed vs Chevy's little boy bed.

I know I would be! Why don't we talk about something that makes more sense like GM's 5.3 vs. Ford's 5.0....Oh, wait. There's no contest there. lol

@Frank
I also agree doing 40-45 on the highway is like Jack and Adam Sandler stopping on the bridge in anger management wtf's your problem. I know the ecoboost has a lot of low end torque but I still don't want less than a 3.55 rear. This whole thing doesnt really have a point. We all kmow th GM 5.3 is fuel efficient but it so low end torqueless that nobody cares how efficient it is.

@Frank
Quote - "So you say that you used 3 tanks for a total of 78 gallons. My math says 26x3= 78, so you didn't put no 36 gallons in the tank. You also probably didn't run it to empty so you might have gotten 28 gallons in the tank. BIG DEAL, not even close to 36 gallons.
Two, driving the way you drove is a menace and a danger to others. If its a two lane road, stay in the right and thats fine but if it's a one lane, either speed up or get the heck out of the way
Some of you hypermilers are hyper stupid. Take off the mirrors, solid hubcaps, blah,blah, blah. And who wants a truck with a 3.15 or 3.31 rear end- its a truck not a car"

In my earlier post, I noted that the third tank was a short tank - with something like 6 gallons added. 36 + 36 + 6 = 78 (numbers rounded) In the writeup on the other site, there is a post noting gallons added at each fillup, distance, and mpg. We tanked up at the start in LA, just off the 10, and headed east. First fill was in Amarillo, TX and the second was in Forsyth, GA, just north of Macon. The third fillup of roughly 6 gallons (IIRC) was done in Tybee at a station three blocks from the ocean - the closest station we could find to the Atlantic. In fact, I snapped a picture of the truck in the station and the ocean is visible in the distance.

We were not a menace or danger to anyone. There isn't a dent or scratch on the truck, nor did our presence on the road cause any incidents. The few times anyone beeped at us, it was a driver who was giving us the thumbs-up. No, it wasn't the middle finger... ;-) They were getting our attention to show their enthusiasm for the truck, which had a very prominent EcoBoost graphics wrap. On the highways, we were camped out in the right lane, and when other cars approached, they passed us in one of the lanes to the left, as they should. Keep in mind that until you reach the central time zone, the interstates are very lonely places, and there weren't many cars or trucks on the road with us. On secondary roads, we kept up just fine with traffic. Nobody was stuck to our butt, there were no blaring horns, no screaming, no swearing, no swerving. In fact, nobody would have guessed by looking at us that were were holding onto tank averages of 30+mpg.

Regarding some hypermilers being hyper stupid... I will address these discreet thoughts:
- Hypermilers being hyper stupid... There are many people on the roads claiming they are "hypermiling" when they coast through stop signs and red lights, drive on the highway below the minimum speed limit, or accelerate from 0-30 in 60 seconds. None of these questionable practices involve "hypermiling". The fact is that Wayne Gerdes of CleanMPG coined the term hypermiling, and he defines it as changing your driving style so as to beat the EPA estimates, as measured in actual fuel consumption, in whatever you're driving. If you are driving a 2011 Ram 1500 Hemi 4wd (EPA13/19) on the highway and you measure 19.1mpg, you are hypermiling - even if you get that 19.1 while screaming down the turnpike at well over the limit with the A/C blasting. It's easier than you think, it doesn't cost anything, and it doesn't mean crawling down the highway at 40mph in a 75 zone. Yes, you can get better mileage with the EB at 45mph instead of 70, but even at 70mph, with the A/C on, we were still getting a bit over 22. And that means we were (everyone, let's say it together...) - hypermiling. Those people you observe to be hyper stupid probably need to go to CleanMPG and learn how to drive efficiently and safely. Nothing "extreme" or "dangerous" involved - you just use the techniques you feel safe and comfortable using, and you spend less on fuel. Not a bad thing at all.

- Taking off mirrors, using solid hubcaps... And I will add in removing the spare tire and all insulation and the rear seat, taping all body seams, etc etc. Those are not hypermilers, they are ecomodders. They also add aluminum or plastic aero-thingies to the body shell so the car/truck looks like a rolling science fair project. They're ecomodders. The challenge truck had all mirrors in place, and the stock chrome wheels were not modified, nor was any other part of the truck. Note the photo up top in this article - you can see both mirrors attached, and there are no wings or fairings or other silliness. There was a tonneau cover in place- for anti-theft rather than better aero. That photo was taken around 7pm last Friday (5/6/11) in Tybee, maybe 1/4 mile south of the pier. The truck you see is the one we used. We gassed it up and drove it.

- Who wants a truck with a 3:15 or 3:31 rear end? Anyone who orders the EcoBoost as their engine choice. Turbocharging gives you peak torque at very low rpm, the 6R80 trans is quick to downshift if needed, and so there is no point in racing the engine. The truck has the same towing limit as what is advertised.
Interesting anecdote and one I really wish I had on video: We missed a turn well north of Birmingham AL, and so the GPS had us turn at an intersection a mile ahead. That took us down these narrow side streets and one turn took us to a country road so steep that I haven't seen anything like it since the artificial "hill" at the Camp Jeep displays at the auto shows. Seriously. We turned left and the next thing I saw was road surface in front of the hood. The EcoBoost 2WD, loaded to just under GVWR (we were down one camping sack and just over 1/4 tank at that point), accelerated up the hill without a sweat. The Fiesta chase car behind, with two big guys aboard and packed tight with luggage, struggled up in first gear with the front tires scratching for traction. It was one of those unexpected tests of the truck, and an excellent affirmation of its ability. Swap out to a red-liner rear axle ratio and the EcoBoost would have performed the same, but with the tach needle in a higher position. The F-150 with EB is so overbuilt and so overpowered that the rear end ratio is almost irrelevant.

In short, to say hypermilers (some or all) are stupid or dangerous or menacing indicates a misunderstanding of the concept, the definition, and execution of efficient driving. If Charles Manson were to prominently declare "I am Irish" while murdering a bunch of people, does that mean that all Irish people are murderers?

Hmm, overfilling the fuel tank is not a good idea. Modern fuel tanks with on-board vapor recovery systems are designed to contain some amount of vapor inside of the tank. Most systems vent through a charcoal canister to capture the HCO that would otherwise vent directly into the atmosphere. The venting system relies on a set of valves that usually function as a fuel cut during roll over as well as allowing to fuel tank to "breathe" without degrading air quality. Filling the tank completely with liquid gasoline will almost surely cause the tank to release liquid into the charcoal canister. The canister will become saturated and will eventually leak liquid fuel directly out into the environment. If the canister's drain tube is protected up inside the body (ie; a crossmember to prevent water and snow ingress) then the gasoline could be dumped into cavities inside the body. The canister will lose all filtering capability and the vehicle's diagnostic system will trigger a service light on the dash. Canisters are not cheap to replace - probably upwards of $300 just for the part. "CleanMPG" isn't very clean from this viewpoint. There IS a reason why the nozzle at refueling stations clicks off at a certain volume for each vehicle.

@ Lucas - good comments.
The new Ford's have "capless" fuel tanks. One is supposed to wait 5 seconds before removing the fuel nozzle to allow for fuel tank pressure to equilibrate. I can't see the rationale for putting extra fuel in the tank. I also can't see Ford's rationale for not having the larger fuel tank as an option in the EB 3.5.

The only reason the 3.15 axle ratio is acceptable is because the rear drive, 4x2, has much smaller tires than the 4x4.
The 4x4 ecoboost with 3.31 axle has equivalent gearing.

Isn't the gearing so tall here that 3rd gear goes to 105mph?

If gearing wasn't a factor, why does Ford offer a special 4.10 axle for ultimate EcoBoost towing.

If gearing wasn't a factor, why is GM spending $200 million upgrading a transmission plant for the production of their own 8 speed automatic.


Why does Whirlpool use EcoBoost in their washing machines?
[It seems they have a trademark, and Ford will have to change back to the TwinForce moniker]

@George

I always liked the ''Twin Force'' name better anway.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com