Edge ST MPG

[jamie1073]

47 minutes ago, DB ST said:

 

EPA estimated highway mileage isn’t tested anywhere near 75mph. More like 55mph. Having a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick is not conducive to getting good gas mileage at high speeds. 

 

And I understand that.  But I am getting less than the city rating, less than what an EcoBoost F150 gets, and that is sad. 

 

I got 16.9 on my last tank according to the math of miles driven and gallons put in.  The computer calculated 18.0 on the same tank, reset the trip when I filled it.  Needless to say I am a little shocked at the crap mileage this vehicle gets considering most of my driving is going around 55-65 mph.  I do not expect the 26 rating but the 19 city rating or even 18 would be nice.  My brother has an F150 and gets in the low 20's with the 2.7 in it.  I may accelerate quick but damn.  Not to mention this thing tells me I need gas when over 3 gallons is left in the tank and it says I have 18 miles left.  My Focus did not do that, it pretty much took 10.5 to 11 gallons every fill on the 11.5 gallon tank.  I ran that car like it was a race car and I repeatedly could go more miles between fills with a tank that had 7 less gallons in it.  I was shocked when I got over 250 miles to the tank this fill.  Oh well looks like I should have got the Kia Stinger instead or something else.  At least the TSB fixed the crappy shifting and I can get into 8th gear when doing 60 so maybe the mileage will increase with the engine turning 400 revs less.  And it does for the most part drop down to the appropriate gear when turning corners so accelerating out of them is not lugging the darn engine. 

 

If I can get it up to hold 17-18 I will be happy I guess.  I don't think it can go much more for my daily drives. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by jamie1073

[neotechpc]

I did 33k miles on my 2015 sport and the long term computer average was 18.9mpg. Even mix of 65mph highway and back roads at 20-40mph. (All on 87 octane)

 

After 1514 miles on the ST, the average is 19.2mpg. Current tank shows 19.6mpg. (Also on 87 octane) It's been slowly improving since I got above 1000 miles and presumably out of the break in. 

 

This is pre-transmission TSB, so will be interested if I get a further improvement. But even without the TSB, my hope of the 'ST has marginally better mileage than the Sport' seems to be true thus far. 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by neotechpc

[jamie1073]

5 hours ago, neotechpc said:

I did 33k miles on my 2015 sport and the long term computer average was 18.9mpg. Even mix of 65mph highway and back roads at 20-40mph. (All on 87 octane)

 

After 1514 miles on the ST, the average is 19.2mpg. Current tank shows 19.6mpg. (Also on 87 octane) It's been slowly improving since I got above 1000 miles and presumably out of the break in. 

 

This is pre-transmission TSB, so will be interested if I get a further improvement. But even without the TSB, my hope of the 'ST has marginally better mileage than the Sport' seems to be true thus far. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the update.  I will fillup either tomorrow or Friday so I will get the latest numbers, this last tank I used 93 to see of it is better or worse.  I have been seeing better numbers on 87 than 93 so this will be interesting.  It will also be the first full tank with the TSB installed. The computer so far says 17.3 for the tank, in the past that has been over 1mpg optimistic compared to the  actual math.  My average from new according to the computer has increased from 16.4 to 16.6 in the last few weeks though.  All in all I am still disappointed it is so low.  It is fun to drive so it kind of outweighs the lousy mileage.  That tank being larger than my Focus ST still lasts a week so I guess I can't complain that I have to fill multiple times in a week. 

[jamie1073]

Update.  Filled today and got 16 on the nose but the computer said 17.4.  Still strange it is off that much.  Funny thing is that was a tank of 93 and I got 16, last tank before  that I got 16.9 on 87.  Same driving style, actually probably took it easier on her this last week. 

[Fingernip]

54 minutes ago, jamie1073 said:

Update.  Filled today and got 16 on the nose but the computer said 17.4.  Still strange it is off that much.  Funny thing is that was a tank of 93 and I got 16, last tank before  that I got 16.9 on 87.  Same driving style, actually probably took it easier on her this last week. 

You are calculating using odometer VS gas during fill? If so you have the error in your calculations since the odometer is mileage and the gas per fill is the engine run time. Your compounding the fact that your liquid volume calculated does not adjust for time idle/stopped with the already existing speedometer calibration/tire size errors that are unavoidable. 

[akirby]

5 minutes ago, Fingernip said:

You are calculating using odometer VS gas during fill? If so you have the error in your calculations since the odometer is mileage and the gas per fill is the engine run time. Your compounding the fact that your liquid volume calculated does not adjust for time idle/stopped with the already existing speedometer calibration/tire size errors that are unavoidable. 

 

Idle/stopped time doesn't matter - it just lowers your mpg since you're burning fuel but not moving.  But it still counts.  I'm not even sure how you would exclude that from your mpg calculations?

 

Unless I'm misreading what you're trying to say.

[Fingernip]

16 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Idle/stopped time doesn't matter - it just lowers your mpg since you're burning fuel but not moving.  But it still counts.  I'm not even sure how you would exclude that from your mpg calculations?

 

Unless I'm misreading what you're trying to say.

You cant exclude it when calculating by hand. The car does. It can factor only consumption while moving.

So basically any hand calculations you do will be lower than the car's readout. If you are not using stop/start the gap will be even bigger. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Fingernip

[jamie1073]

39 minutes ago, Fingernip said:

You cant exclude it when calculating by hand. The car does. It can factor only consumption while moving.

So basically any hand calculations you do will be lower than the car's readout. If you are not using stop/start the gap will be even bigger. 

 

The car's computer calculates the idle time just the same as the math.  If you let your car sit and idle the computer calculates 0mpg for that time frame.  And it will drop if you just sit and idle all day.   I just assume the computer calculation is off on purpose to make people feel better, since I am sure if they were ever called out on it they would say it is not supposed to be an exact reflection of the mileage.  It is for people like my father who is in his 70's and to lazy to calculate it and to old to care and believes what it says.  Heck his Escape has average 22 mpg over it's 2 years of lease as of now and he does mostly highway driving.  My mothers MKC is at 20.2 mpg and she is fine with that as well.  I just expect a hair more, maybe 1 or 2 mpg and I would be happy.  Heck if it was consistent I would be happy but it has ranged from 13.8 to 18.1 per tank, the 18 was with a 140-150 mile round trip on the highway.  Anyway I will just deal with it for 3 years and move on to another vehicle and it will probably not be another Ford.  I only asked on here to see what others may be getting.  I guess I have an oddball one.  I just expect more since my brother gets over 20 on his Ecoboost F150.  My computer average for the life of the car is 16.6 and my mileage based on data is 15.4 for thye last 2445 miles.  Car has 4000 on it now.  And I do not idle long at all, I only warm it up maybe a few minutes when it was super cold but not at all the last few tanks.  Not to mention the engine shuts itself off when stopped anyhow. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Fingernip said:

You cant exclude it when calculating by hand. The car does. It can factor only consumption while moving.

So basically any hand calculations you do will be lower than the car's readout. If you are not using stop/start the gap will be even bigger. 

 

What Jamie said.   Go fill up, reset the MPG and then park and idle and you'll see the mpg drop as it idles.  It's the same calculation either way.

 

I'm not sure exactly why Ford's computers are always a bit high (insert conspiracy theory here) but I suspect it's unintentional and may have something to do with E-10/E-15 vs. E-0 on the EPA tests.  Either way you can adjust this with Forscan to make it match your hand calculated values.

[Fingernip]

2 hours ago, jamie1073 said:

 

The car's computer calculates the idle time just the same as the math.  If you let your car sit and idle the computer calculates 0mpg for that time frame.  And it will drop if you just sit and idle all day.   I just assume the computer calculation is off on purpose to make people feel better, since I am sure if they were ever called out on it they would say it is not supposed to be an exact reflection of the mileage.  It is for people like my father who is in his 70's and to lazy to calculate it and to old to care and believes what it says.  Heck his Escape has average 22 mpg over it's 2 years of lease as of now and he does mostly highway driving.  My mothers MKC is at 20.2 mpg and she is fine with that as well.  I just expect a hair more, maybe 1 or 2 mpg and I would be happy.  Heck if it was consistent I would be happy but it has ranged from 13.8 to 18.1 per tank, the 18 was with a 140-150 mile round trip on the highway.  Anyway I will just deal with it for 3 years and move on to another vehicle and it will probably not be another Ford.  I only asked on here to see what others may be getting.  I guess I have an oddball one.  I just expect more since my brother gets over 20 on his Ecoboost F150.  My computer average for the life of the car is 16.6 and my mileage based on data is 15.4 for thye last 2445 miles.  Car has 4000 on it now.  And I do not idle long at all, I only warm it up maybe a few minutes when it was super cold but not at all the last few tanks.  Not to mention the engine shuts itself off when stopped anyhow. 

It does not factor infinite into the calculation it also uses fuel flow from fuel pump resistance and throttle body position. It’s a heck of a lot more complex than simple distance over volume. Even my old 86 Lincoln didn’t calculate idle time into the MPG calc. 

[Fingernip]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

 

What Jamie said.   Go fill up, reset the MPG and then park and idle and you'll see the mpg drop as it idles.  It's the same calculation either way.

 

I'm not sure exactly why Ford's computers are always a bit high (insert conspiracy theory here) but I suspect it's unintentional and may have something to do with E-10/E-15 vs. E-0 on the EPA tests.  Either way you can adjust this with Forscan to make it match your hand calculated values.

I’ll test that again but when I first got the car it was the first thing I notice. Mpg went up after Quite a bit of idle time. Even found out it shuts off after a predetermined time with key outside of the vehicle. I suspect fluctuations may be based on some math Ford engineers designed into it to forecast economy based on closed loop fuel tables. Everything I am saying is just speculation though so I’m all for being proven wrong. 

[Perblue]

1 minute ago, Fingernip said:

I’ll test that again but when I first got the car it was the first thing I notice. Mpg went up after Quite a bit of idle time. Even found out it shuts off after a predetermined time with key outside of the vehicle. I suspect fluctuations may be based on some math Ford engineers designed into it to forecast economy based on closed loop fuel tables. Everything I am saying is just speculation though so I’m all for being proven wrong. 

 

It calculates in idle time. I watched my mpg fall, sometimes drastically if I had recently filled up, while waiting for my wife to go in to a store during the winter.

[Fingernip]

28 minutes ago, Perblue said:

 

It calculates in idle time. I watched my mpg fall, sometimes drastically if I had recently filled up, while waiting for my wife to go in to a store during the winter.

If that is the case then it is as useless as a hand calculation if you are disabling stop/start or using sport mode. Other variables are also unavoidable such as electrical system load. I’m sure EPA testing isn’t done with heated seats/wheel on, blower on high or music thumping on the 800watt system. 

[Perblue]

6 minutes ago, Fingernip said:

If that is the case then it is as useless as a hand calculation if you are disabling stop/start or using sport mode. Other variables are also unavoidable such as electrical system load. I’m sure EPA testing isn’t done with heated seats/wheel on, blower on high or music thumping on the 800watt system. 

 

How is it useless? It is giving you your true mpg for that tank, which of course if you do alot of idling or stop and go or passing/aggressive driving you will never get the epa mpg but the number shown or calculated will be the mpg you got for that tank. If it is far off the rating it could be the drivers fault or driving conditions fault and not the cars and you have to factor that in before you complain about poor mpg and comparing it to others. It is though, what makes city mpg ratings very unpredictable and at times very unaccurate and is why I mainly go by what it shows on the highway as to whether or not it is getting the mpg it should. 

 

Granted I was hoping mine would do better than what my 3.5l did in town, which to start didn't look very promising but with nicer weather and possibly the recent tsb it seems like it will. 

 

The epa actually does do testing with accessories running and the extra load caused by extra put on top of what they do wouldn't affect mpg very much. 

[Fingernip]

43 minutes ago, Perblue said:

 

How is it useless? It is giving you your true mpg for that tank, which of course if you do alot of idling or stop and go or passing/aggressive driving you will never get the epa mpg but the number shown or calculated will be the mpg you got for that tank. If it is far off the rating it could be the drivers fault or driving conditions fault and not the cars and you have to factor that in before you complain about poor mpg and comparing it to others. It is though, what makes city mpg ratings very unpredictable and at times very unaccurate and is why I mainly go by what it shows on the highway as to whether or not it is getting the mpg it should. 

 

Granted I was hoping mine would do better than what my 3.5l did in town, which to start didn't look very promising but with nicer weather and possibly the recent tsb it seems like it will. 

 

The epa actually does do testing with accessories running and the extra load caused by extra put on top of what they do wouldn't affect mpg very much. 

It Is not giving mpg. It would be miles per tank which is a more generic average. To resolve back to miles per gallon implies that it is plotting only fuel used while in motion. EPA testing is defined. I’ll look up exactly how they test it later when I have time but I’m sure it will be limited accessories.

IMO it is useless because idle time fuel usage is completely useless data since the intent of the function is to determine how many miles you can travel on a gallon of gas. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Fingernip

[jamie1073]

29 minutes ago, Fingernip said:

It Is not giving mpg. It would be miles per tank which is a more generic average. To resolve back to miles per gallon implies that it is plotting only fuel used while in motion. EPA testing is defined. I’ll look up exactly how they test it later when I have time but I’m sure it will be limited accessories.

IMO it is useless because idle time fuel usage is completely useless data since the intent of the function is to determine how many miles you can travel on a gallon of gas. 

 

Why are you talking about this still.  MPG has always been calculated by the amount of miles driven divided by the gallons used.  It is the same exact calculation the EPA uses in their driving cycle tests.  They do not use a computer in the car to calculate it.  They have a specific course they sake art specific speeds using gas that has no ethanol in it.  People have been using this methods for decades, long before the car computer told you what you were getting.  It is in fact the only way to know what MPG you get on your daily route with your  specific conditions.  It is Miles Per Gallon for crying out loud.  The EPA does not drive the car in a straight line without stopping for city mileage tests, get this they stop and go like you would if driving in a city.  Of course they do not drive like I do, they drive casually with a light foot.  Not flooring it stop sign to stop sign.  But I also do not drive in the City much and my drive is mostly at 55-65 mph the same every day.  With speeding up to and slowing down to 55-65mph a few times as I change roads.  So I would like to get at least close to city mileage but do not.  I get less mileage than I  did with a 1999 Jeep GC V-8.  I get less than a full size f150 pickup truck.  Granted I enjoy my drives so I also accelerate hard sometimes, I did buy the car for that purpose.  I just compare it to how close my Focus ST that was tuned got on the same drives, not the actual mpg as that would be silly, but the closeness to the city rating I got on that.  I am not expecting 24mpg here, I was hoping for 17-18 though. 

 

As for how many miles you can travel on a gallon, the only true way to do that is to get on a flat road and travel a certain distance at a certain speed and see how much gas was used for that distance and do the math.  That is an unrealistic calculation because no one does that all the time so it is useless since conditions change and it would be wrong.  What you want is 'your' mpg based on your driving style and your route you take.  Mine is apparently 16mpg on the last tank on my daily commute.  On an extended highway drive the computer said 24 on one and 22 on another for the duration of the trip.  I did not fill up before leaving and fill up when I arrived and see what the gallons used was as I did not care that much.  But if my mileage is off by 1.4mpg on the computer compared to the math then I guess I got 20.6 and 22.6 on those trips.  Not the 26 rating but I was doing 75 with the cruise on.  Now as a comparison my 2003  MB C230K was rated at 29mpg  and it would get 32 on a 350 miles trip through the PA mountains and NYS with the cruise set at 75.  Either way my Edge sucks compared to what other in this thread have been getting for mileage. 

[Fingernip]

8 minutes ago, jamie1073 said:

 

Why are you talking about this still.  MPG has always been calculated by the amount of miles driven divided by the gallons used.  It is the same exact calculation the EPA uses in their driving cycle tests.  They do not use a computer in the car to calculate it.  They have a specific course they sake art specific speeds using gas that has no ethanol in it.  People have been using this methods for decades, long before the car computer told you what you were getting.  It is in fact the only way to know what MPG you get on your daily route with your  specific conditions.  It is Miles Per Gallon for crying out loud.  The EPA does not drive the car in a straight line without stopping for city mileage tests, get this they stop and go like you would if driving in a city.  Of course they do not drive like I do, they drive casually with a light foot.  Not flooring it stop sign to stop sign.  But I also do not drive in the City much and my drive is mostly at 55-65 mph the same every day.  With speeding up to and slowing down to 55-65mph a few times as I change roads.  So I would like to get at least close to city mileage but do not.  I get less mileage than I  did with a 1999 Jeep GC V-8.  I get less than a full size f150 pickup truck.  Granted I enjoy my drives so I also accelerate hard sometimes, I did buy the car for that purpose.  I just compare it to how close my Focus ST that was tuned got on the same drives, not the actual mpg as that would be silly, but the closeness to the city rating I got on that.  I am not expecting 24mpg here, I was hoping for 17-18 though. 

 

As for how many miles you can travel on a gallon, the only true way to do that is to get on a flat road and travel a certain distance at a certain speed and see how much gas was used for that distance and do the math.  That is an unrealistic calculation because no one does that all the time so it is useless since conditions change and it would be wrong.  What you want is 'your' mpg based on your driving style and your route you take.  Mine is apparently 16mpg on the last tank on my daily commute.  On an extended highway drive the computer said 24 on one and 22 on another for the duration of the trip.  I did not fill up before leaving and fill up when I arrived and see what the gallons used was as I did not care that much.  But if my mileage is off by 1.4mpg on the computer compared to the math then I guess I got 20.6 and 22.6 on those trips.  Not the 26 rating but I was doing 75 with the cruise on.  Now as a comparison my 2003  MB C230K was rated at 29mpg  and it would get 32 on a 350 miles trip through the PA mountains and NYS with the cruise set at 75.  Either way my Edge sucks compared to what other in this thread have been getting for mileage. 

They also don’t shift the car to park or warm it up with a remote start. You have been complaining about your mileage for weeks with no one helping you and I’m trying to offer some sort of counter logic. You don’t seem to care about the fact that you are calculating a real world scenario and comparing it to a controlled condition rating. Also what you are doing when calculating total tank is NOT MPG. It never has been and never will be. They do not test with the vehicle not in drive. This will reduce idle times more than you might imagine. 

 

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, Fingernip said:

They also don’t shift the car to park or warm it up with a remote start. You have been complaining about your mileage for weeks with no one helping you and I’m trying to offer some sort of counter logic. You don’t seem to care about the fact that you are calculating a real world scenario and comparing it to a controlled condition rating. Also what you are doing when calculating total tank is NOT MPG. It never has been and never will be. They do not test with the vehicle not in drive. This will reduce idle times more than you might imagine. 

 

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

I’m sorry but you’re dead wrong on this.  There is no way to calculate MPG without including idle time because MPG is Miles per Gallon.  Idling consumes fuel but yields no mileage, therefore it will lower your MPG results.    If you drive 50 mph steady you might see 27 mpg.  If I drive in stop and go traffic I might get 12 mpg.  Both are valid.

[Fingernip]

32 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

I’m sorry but you’re dead wrong on this.  There is no way to calculate MPG without including idle time because MPG is Miles per Gallon.  Idling consumes fuel but yields no mileage, therefore it will lower your MPG results.    If you drive 50 mph steady you might see 27 mpg.  If I drive in stop and go traffic I might get 12 mpg.  Both are valid.

How is it wrong by any definition? The current standard is only lenient to include idle time to consider real world driving. Miles per gallon is exactly that. But they don’t include time idle with the car in park. They simulate a several types of drives only but stop short of waiting for the kids at school or leaving the car running while you buy lotto tickets. The inclusion of the stop/start system was to minimize time idle but with the car in park it obviously doesn’t work. You are arguing against the literal definition of the entire premise. EPA realizes people have to stop/accelerate and cruise and test under multiple conditions in an attempt to best simulate this. Ford maybe with the understanding of this include some idle data in the MPG calculation to best simulate EPA ratings otherwise people would complain even more if the car read 30% better than real world per tank averages.  

Edited April 19, 2019 by Fingernip

[omar302]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

  Either way you can adjust this with Forscan to make it match your hand calculated values.

 

You don't need ForScan or any tool. 

 

 

[jamie1073]

9 hours ago, Fingernip said:

They also don’t shift the car to park or warm it up with a remote start. You have been complaining about your mileage for weeks with no one helping you and I’m trying to offer some sort of counter logic. You don’t seem to care about the fact that you are calculating a real world scenario and comparing it to a controlled condition rating. Also what you are doing when calculating total tank is NOT MPG. It never has been and never will be. They do not test with the vehicle not in drive. This will reduce idle times more than you might imagine. 

 

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

What your 'counter logic' does not seem to understand is that I have done this type of driving and mileage calculation for over 30 years and this is by far the worst MPG of any vehicle I have even owned.  Other Ford's I have access to via family members owning them seem to get far better mileage and are all Eco0Boosted vehicles.  I also seem to not be able to get anymore than 15.5 gallons of gas into this vehicle when it says it will be empty in 20 miles, compared to my last Ford that would fill 10.5-11 gallons into its 11.5 gallon tank.  I get less miles per tank with an 18.5 gallon vehicle than I did with a vehicle with an 11.5 gallon tank because my MPG, calculated by hand or computer , is abysmal.  Any vehicle I have driven the computer calculation would get near its city rating given my driving style and daily commute, within 1mpg.  Even going by the computer this is 2.5mpg short of that.  I fiull-up when it says I have 20-40 miles left on the tank, and that used to be every 200 miles but now has increased slightly to around 240.  That is rediculous, I am not driving a 1992 Viper, I am driving a damn 2019 vehicle.  It does not matter if I drive like a little old lady or a race car driver, I have tried both in my 4 months of ownership.  Others seem to be getting in the low 20's in this post so if I am getting 16 then something may actually be wrong with my ride, but before I go to the dealer I like to see if others are having the issue.  Just like with the crappy programming of the transmission, which they made better but still not perfect. 

 

And I got better MPG when I did sit and idle with remote start than I do just firing it up and leaving in 30-60 seconds.  I got better MPG when I used 87 than I do with 93.  I am hoping that it is just the winter gas or the fact that it was cold as balls but it is getting warmer now. Either way I was sold on the MPG being somewhere near the low end rating like my previous vehicles.  I lease the vehicle so it is not as easy to just go get another one without me figuring if it is worth it to trade it in and break the lease.  Plus I got D Plan on it so it was not full price compared to another vehicle I would get.  

[Fingernip]

11 minutes ago, jamie1073 said:

 

What your 'counter logic' does not seem to understand is that I have done this type of driving and mileage calculation for over 30 years and this is by far the worst MPG of any vehicle I have even owned.  Other Ford's I have access to via family members owning them seem to get far better mileage and are all Eco0Boosted vehicles.  I also seem to not be able to get anymore than 15.5 gallons of gas into this vehicle when it says it will be empty in 20 miles, compared to my last Ford that would fill 10.5-11 gallons into its 11.5 gallon tank.  I get less miles per tank with an 18.5 gallon vehicle than I did with a vehicle with an 11.5 gallon tank because my MPG, calculated by hand or computer , is abysmal.  Any vehicle I have driven the computer calculation would get near its city rating given my driving style and daily commute, within 1mpg.  Even going by the computer this is 2.5mpg short of that.  I fiull-up when it says I have 20-40 miles left on the tank, and that used to be every 200 miles but now has increased slightly to around 240.  That is rediculous, I am not driving a 1992 Viper, I am driving a damn 2019 vehicle.  It does not matter if I drive like a little old lady or a race car driver, I have tried both in my 4 months of ownership.  Others seem to be getting in the low 20's in this post so if I am getting 16 then something may actually be wrong with my ride, but before I go to the dealer I like to see if others are having the issue.  Just like with the crappy programming of the transmission, which they made better but still not perfect. 

 

And I got better MPG when I did sit and idle with remote start than I do just firing it up and leaving in 30-60 seconds.  I got better MPG when I used 87 than I do with 93.  I am hoping that it is just the winter gas or the fact that it was cold as balls but it is getting warmer now. Either way I was sold on the MPG being somewhere near the low end rating like my previous vehicles.  I lease the vehicle so it is not as easy to just go get another one without me figuring if it is worth it to trade it in and break the lease.  Plus I got D Plan on it so it was not full price compared to another vehicle I would get.  

I really believe your issue should be addressed by your dealer. I got low 16mpg when brand new with countless hours idle (showing off the car to friends and family). Also was warmed up daily for the entire winter. It went from 16 flat to 16.8 or so while just idle after resetting it, taking a short drive across town and idling it until it shut itself off. Now with 2000 miles and only 1 real highway trip of 300 miles it displays over 18mpg. My daily commute is 2.7 miles each way and I sometimes go home for lunch. I also use sport mode often and drive like an idiot when the traffic allows. 

[akirby]

8 hours ago, omar302 said:

 

You don't need ForScan or any tool. 

 

 

Thanks - that’s the post I remembered from the F150 forum but I thought it required Forscan.

[akirby]

10 hours ago, Fingernip said:

How is it wrong by any definition? The current standard is only lenient to include idle time to consider real world driving. Miles per gallon is exactly that. But they don’t include time idle with the car in park. They simulate a several types of drives only but stop short of waiting for the kids at school or leaving the car running while you buy lotto tickets. The inclusion of the stop/start system was to minimize time idle but with the car in park it obviously doesn’t work. You are arguing against the literal definition of the entire premise. EPA realizes people have to stop/accelerate and cruise and test under multiple conditions in an attempt to best simulate this. Ford maybe with the understanding of this include some idle data in the MPG calculation to best simulate EPA ratings otherwise people would complain even more if the car read 30% better than real world per tank averages.  

 

Ok I see what you’re trying to do here.  You’re trying to equate the computer calculated mpg to the EPA test results.  And since the EPA test results don’t include lots of idling you think the computer shouldn’t include it either.  But that’s only one thing.  Should the computer compensate for using E-10 instead of E-0?  Should it not count any time you drive faster than 55 since that’s the EPA test avg speed on the highway?  Should it compensate for tire pressure or different tires?  It just doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way.   The EPA test is just a way to compare different vehicles.   There is no way anybody would drive exactly like the EPA test.

 

MPG is simple - I put X gallons in and drove Y miles.  Period.  And that’s all the computer is measuring.  It’s up to you to compare the results to the EPA and adjust the way you drive.

[Perblue]

2 hours ago, jamie1073 said:

  Other Ford's I have access to via family members owning them seem to get far better mileage and are all Eco0Boosted vehicles.  I also seem to not be able to get anymore than 15.5 gallons of gas into this vehicle when it says it will be empty in 20 miles, compared to my last Ford that would fill 10.5-11 gallons into its 11.5 gallon tank.  I get less miles per tank with an 18.5 gallon vehicle than I did with a vehicle with an 11.5 gallon tank because my MPG, calculated by hand or computer , is abysmal.  Any vehicle I have driven the computer calculation would get near its city rating given my driving style and daily commute, within 1mpg.  Even going by the computer this is 2.5mpg short of that.  

 

I can't believe you are still complaining about the fuel capacity. This was explained to you. If you don't like it and it makes you so happy drive it until it says 0 it will still have a reserve in it to keep people like you from burning out the fuel pump. 

 

As for mileage you had it at the dealership, did you discuss it with them at all or are you just grumping about it on the internet? You say you like to check if others have the issue well you've checked and repeated yourself we get your point anything we say or suggest is wrong and ignored so go deal with ford.