kp613 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Hey there. Just purchased a new 16' Ford Edge SEL 2.0L AWD. I am getting about 7.2L / 100km. Not more than 420km per tank. I personally find this to be horrible. Is this an issue with these vehicles? Is this just mine that is so low. What is the average most of you are getting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildisco Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Try browsing through these: http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/edge/2016?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id= If your engine is new, there is a break in period, i believe it even says so in the manual. I think it's around 5,000 miles, could be wrong on that. It basically states that your gas mileage is going to be all over the place for the first few thousand miles until the engine breaks in & the car learns your driving habits, like transmission shift points. Currently, i average around 25 mpg or 10.6286 kpl. My average miles per tank is 318.9 or 513.2198 kilometers per tank. Also i don't know if they change your fuel properties up there or not, but I've noticed about a 3 mpg drop since the fuel has switched to winter blend. I'm also fwd so my stats are going to be slightly better than yours anyways because i don't have the rear drivetrain to worry about. Edited January 7, 2017 by lildisco 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezz Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Hey there. Just purchased a new 16' Ford Edge SEL 2.0L AWD. I am getting about 7.2L / 100km. Not more than 420km per tank. I personally find this to be horrible. Is this an issue with these vehicles? Is this just mine that is so low. What is the average most of you are getting? 7.2L / 100km is good. The 2.0L is rated worse than what you're getting. But if you max out at 420 km / tank then the computer is lying about your fuel economy. Its probably closer to the city rating of the 2.0L. I have seen my fuel econ get worse since the start of winter, which is expected. And as lildisco said, if the engine isnt broken in yet then that also impacts it aswell. Edited January 7, 2017 by Beezz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kp613 Posted January 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Yeah, I bought it as a demo model so it has 13000K once I got it. 420 to a tank was hwy btw. City I'm getting avg 350. I'm coming from a 12' AWD legacy with a 3.6R engine. City I would get over 550 and hwy close to 750. That's why I'm curious. It doesn't seem right. I thought I would be getting the same, if not better. Both vehicles have same size tank as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildisco Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) If you're driving all highway, i noticed that if there's no headwind or hilly sections, i can get closer to 30mpg or higher. Too much pass 65mph & my fuel economy tanks, barely getting passed 25-26mpg. Planning ahead for stops & acceleration really help. Remember at stop lights you're getting 0mpg & accelerating you get far worse mpg than cruising. Anytime you're accelerating at highway speeds, you're more than likely generating boost & using more fuel. Also using the A/C will zap a few mpg's/kpl's as well. Edited January 7, 2017 by lildisco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezz Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Yeah thats not normal at all then, have the dealer take a look. 350 in the city is horribly low for the 2.0L. I drive like a goon and still get 450-550 km to a tank in mixed with the 2.7L. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kp613 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Beezz, thanks. I will bring it in. I drove like a dick in my Subaru. In this I'm actually cautious trying to save gas, and it's worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWPerfA_ZN0W Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 EB engines need "goose-ing" once in a while to help prevent carbon buildup on the backs on the intake valves. Can be something as simple as that. Slugging the engine really is to no benefit, let the computer do its' job. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma-2 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Many moons ago, Mobile gasoline used to sponsor a cross-country drive involving several different car makes, but just using Mobile gasoline (to "prove" how much better fuel economy you could get with Mobilegas). Of course they used every trick in the book, but they disclosed the real trick was how they trained their drivers. They use to place a raw egg between the drivers foot and gas petal and the driver had to qualify in their driving school without braking the egg. The most difficult time was accelerating from a stop. Basically they figured it was this trick alone that accounted for the bulk of the improvement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cds71 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Hey there. Just purchased a new 16' Ford Edge SEL 2.0L AWD. I am getting about 7.2L / 100km. Not more than 420km per tank. I personally find this to be horrible. Is this an issue with these vehicles? Is this just mine that is so low. What is the average most of you are getting? Your not happy with 39mpg??? I know with my 2.7 if I drive like a normal human being(as my wife calls it) I will get around 31/32 mpg on the highway. Ive had a trip log going for about 12000km and my average fuel economy is 24mpg. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezz Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 The rear muffler is literally caked in carbon... can only imagine what the valves look like now. And as wwwperfa_zn0w said, slugging doesn't do it any good either, cause low rpm acceleration usually makes more boost and burns more fuel as opposed to quickly up shifting and accelerating. Either way, 350km/tank is so bad, something is definitely up. cds71, I think that kp613's trip meter is lying about the 7.2L/100 km as kp613 said they only get 420km/tank at most, which would mean the trip meter should read something 15+L/100km (at 420 km/68 L) which is crazy for mixed driving. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWizard Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Your not happy with 39mpg??? I know with my 2.7 if I drive like a normal human being(as my wife calls it) I will get around 31/32 mpg on the highway. Ive had a trip log going for about 12000km and my average fuel economy is 24mpg. For those of us in the US, the 7.2 L/km equals 39.2 mpg (Imperial gallons) which is only 32.7 mpg (US gallons). But the point is well taken... if that really was the mileage then it would be nothing to complain about. Have you tried calculating the mileage manually? That would tell you whether the problem is an optimistic mileage calculator or a problem with the fuel gauge indicating you have less than actual (i.e. you're filling up when you still have more gas left in the tank than is indicated). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kp613 Posted January 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I receive my vehicle back tomorrow, after they have fixed the blown rear window. Will calculate manually. Report exact city and hwy kms and total amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cds71 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 The rear muffler is literally caked in carbon... can only imagine what the valves look like now. And as wwwperfa_zn0w said, slugging doesn't do it any good either, cause low rpm acceleration usually makes more boost and burns more fuel as opposed to quickly up shifting and accelerating. Either way, 350km/tank is so bad, something is definitely up. cds71, I think that kp613's trip meter is lying about the 7.2L/100 km as kp613 said they only get 420km/tank at most, which would mean the trip meter should read something 15+L/100km (at 420 km/68 L) which is crazy for mixed driving. Yes exactly....cause when i get a consistant 11L/100km....is usually see almost 500km per tank......so yes something seems a lil funky with his trip meter. Im actually going to install a catch can which should really help out with the carbon buildup on the the valves.....mind you I have not heard of a 2.7 failing due to valve train coking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWPerfA_ZN0W Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 No failure attributed to valve train coking on the 3.5 EB either. It's just that slow aging process that you don't notice until you are pretty far along. Mileage and performance suffer that slow decline, spark plugs want to give up the ghost but the computer keeps them firing ... Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junehhan Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 (edited) The Ecoboosts that seem to have more carbon issues are the 2.0 and the 2.3. The 2.7 is still too new, but there are a ton of 3.5's in the F150's that have a ton of miles on them without having carbon issues yet. I suspect that the 2.7's will be similar considering that it was an all new engine designed from the ground up to do what it does. Also looking at soot covered tailpipes is not an indication of how much carbon the backside of the intake valves have. It is the nature of these GTDI engines in that boost and higher compression ratios with DI will mean extra particulates. They also tend to run a little richer as a safety measure as it keeps things cooler which means more unburnt stuff coming out as well. Edited January 16, 2017 by junehhan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildisco Posted January 16, 2017 Report Share Posted January 16, 2017 Took a recent trip down to Southern Ohio & back. Made it there & back on 1 tank 381 miles on winter mix fuel & around 75mph. Car said i averaged 27mpg, actual calculation was 25.8 on 14.77 gallons. Not too snabby. I gained a lot when speeds were below 65. The 2nd pic of the computer was before i drove from home to the gas station. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kp613 Posted January 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Hey guys, so I finally received my vehicle back and this is what my guage is showing after a complete fill up. The above is about 60/40 city/hwy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildisco Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 So you filled up the car & it didn't reset? Or do you mean that you filled up your car & that's what the computer said you did? Did you manually calculate yoir tank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kp613 Posted January 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 I reset it after filling. I got 384km (238miles) from a full tank of gas. With approximately 26km remaining. @60/40 city/hwy You ask if I manually calculated? What do you mean? I reset the trip for this tank of gas. How else do you manually track? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWizard Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 Manually calculating mileage is done by filling up the vehicle, resetting the trip meter or noting the odometer reading, driving around for a while until more fuel is needed, filling up again and noting the number of liters/gallons used along with the trip meter or new odometer reading, then dividing miles by gallons (for miles per gallon) or liters times 100 divided by kilometers (for liters per 100 km). Basically it eliminates the possibility that the value shown in the dash is incorrect (they are almost always inaccurate to some extent although usually a fairly small difference). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 27, 2017 Report Share Posted January 27, 2017 E.g. - you fill up with gas and your odometer says 19000 kms. You drive until you need gas again. You put in 40 litres of gas and your odometer now reads 19,400 kms so you drove 400 kms on 40 litres of fuel. 40*100/400 = 10 litres/100km. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tao Peng Posted June 20 Report Share Posted June 20 My 2016 Edge 2.0 Ecoboost AWD - I just noticed poor gas mileage recently, about 17 MPG driving local routes. However I measured fuel consumption highway only and it reaches 30 MPG. The official website marks it 20 city / 28 highway. I am using #87 gas. Not sure if there is anything need to be done such as clean O2 sensors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabangsta Posted June 20 Report Share Posted June 20 (edited) Air filter changed every 20,000 miles at least? No low tires (check them, not relying on the TPMS system)? No wheel that is hotter than the rest, or has more brake dust on it? How many miles and all other maintenance up to date, like spark plugs? Also driving style and environment around town can easily give you slightly lower than the EPA rating. I never match it (or highway either, but that rating doesn't include interstate driving, nothing over 55 if I remember correctly), I am an aggressive driver (jack rabbit starts, don't coast to stops but keep on the gas then instantly to brake, late and hard). Edited June 20 by dabangsta 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim W. AZ Posted June 20 Report Share Posted June 20 Now that it's summer, are you running the AC every time you drive? I went from 24-26 city to 21-22 with AC use, but I live in Phoenix. On a recent 2900 mile trip covering desert and mountain driving, my overall average was 31.1 mpg and I was pretty happy with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.