Truck is brand new. I want it to be a little more than stock for power and MPG. But I dont want to push it to the point where I will see problems and or ruin my MPG. I would like a gain if anything and still run 87-89 gas.
Thinking start with cat back- Which one?
Then CAI- I will likely go with the least expensive as I dont think there is much difference.
Chip it- I have no idea where to start. I do want to use canned programs. I figure all the tuiners must know better than I do.
Love to hear some input from those of you who have been at it.

 

Simply put, you will not find any performance modifications of any kind that will give you reliable MPG improvements. All the OEMS are digging for 10ths of a MPG improvement and there are no silver bullets left that they haven't already optimized. If you want more power, go for it. But you'll need to burn more fuel and there go your MPGs.

Our intakes are already optimized unless you're willing to put up with reduced filtering. Even then you won't see improved MPGs with decreased restriction. Cat back systems are kind of pointless IMO on a turbo engine since the main pressures are before the turbo and cats and mufflers these days are very efficient. I did dyno pulls with my 2005 before and after adding a CAI and cat-back (including driving for a week to let the computer adjust) and I saw a power decrease across the entire power band.

I think a few claim to see MPG improvements with a tune for premium fuel, but I highly doubt the fuel savings pays for the increased gas price, let alone the cost of the modifications.

If you want better MPGs, don't add any weight, increase your tire pressure, hypermile your commute and slow down. But life is short and Sport mode is fun...

 

Like was already posted the factory has already done as much as possible. A tune may help but it will give more power as well and if you are like most of us if you increase your power you will use it and there go your MPG. The only thing that I have found is a good tight tonneau cover, because if it doesn't add any power I won't abuse it.

 

well, i guess they came up with the 17mpg city-23 mpg hwy. in there dreams. my 2017 short bed,S E,crew hasn't seen better than 17mpg at 72 mph on I-75 yet!about to be run over at that.lots of pi--ed off looks. now if i run 85mph i get 18-19mph, and tickets to go with it.. but, never have i got 21mph.like the 3.5ecoboost,&10 speed but,poor fuel mieage.i believe as onug states it is what it is. if ford new the tricks theywould be selling them.

 

[QUOTE=Silverbitch;17701677]well, i guess they came up with the 17mpg city-23 mpg hwy. in there dreams. my 2017 short bed,S E,crew hasn't seen better than 17mpg at 72 mph on I-75 yet!about to be run over at that.lots of pi--ed off looks. now if i run 85mph i get 18-19mph, and tickets to go with it.. but, never have i got 21mph.like the 3.5ecoboost,&10 speed but,poor fuel mieage.i believe as onug states it is what it is. if ford new the tricks theywould be selling them.

 

[QUOTE=Silverbitch;17701685]so you get better mpg if you go faster?
personally i average 17.5 in town and 20 on the freeway doing 70ish

 

[QUOTE=Mrfun2fly;17796830]Is that hand calculated or going by the LOM? Because I avg 19.2mpg on the LOM, but hand calc I'm getting closer to 17.5mpg.

 

[QUOTE=FX4ALL;18120929]not sure what LOM is but I fill my tank and drive till I'm told I have 25 miles left on a tank then fill up again. I do this for every tank and when I fill up I hand calculate my milage to have an accurate number. I still average 17.5 in town and 19.5-20mpg on the highway

 

Lie-o-meter

That's great yours is that accurate.

 

Time to get gas, this is my recent tank