I definitely did not buy my ECO with the expectation of getting over 30 miles to the gallon. Never once did I ever see a Ford ad touting over 30 miles to the gallon for the Eco. I knew the EPA estimate for highway use was 21 mpg. I also knew that would have been with a truck that was probably a standard cab, with a max of 3.31 and probably smaller than that rear end and as short a box as possible. I also knew my truck, with the 3.73 rear, HD pkg, Max Tow Pkg, and 163" rear end would never see 21. However, it got 19.5 mpg on a 450 mile round trip when not pulling.

I also knew that I'd get roughly the same mpg as I got with my 2005 F150 w/5.4L engine, and it does. Got 10.2 on a 1500 mile jaunt pulling my TT, and that's with an engine that would run circles around the tired old 5.4L.

Are you telling me in Canada, Ford was actually advertising 32 mpg, or what ever that equates to in liters per mile?

 

I'm surprised the Canadian govt would put up mpg (imperial) since you guys went off that standard decades ago. I'd say that is somewhat misleading.

 

Sadly, it's very common for auto advertisements in Canada to have Miles per imperial Gallon. It's a very misleading number. Also up here, it's totally legal to advertise Highway MPG (or L/100KM) and not a combined cycle like the EPA uses.
So the same truck that is listed at 17 MPG in the USA can be listed at 31 MPG (imperial ) here in Canada. it fools a lot of folks who aren't paying attention.

Apparently that was an issue with out brother Brandon.

 

Although, I should clarify, it's not hard to find the "real" number either. the correct "standard" measurement is L/100km, and using that, there can be no confusion. It's always listed on the window sticker.

Also, there are many places, both online and in print, that do a proper apples-to-apples comparison on Miles per US gallon. It's not that tough once a person educates themselves.

My guess is that Brandon won't be fooled again.

 

Yes, every commercial on TV up here in Canada says 32 MPG about 5 times before the commercial ends. Granted I figured it was a pipe dream, I did expect to at least get 21-22 MPG but that again was a pipe dream. I fully agree this is very misleading and I guess I should have done a little more research.

And thanks Tseekins, I was also sad to see the truck go and aside from the disappointment with the MPG, it was a great truck. Just seemed to be bad luck for me as I was hit on the highway while doing 80 MPH just 3 weeks before the accident that killed it, and nearly rolled it on that occasion. I was actually on my way to drop it off at the body shop for repairs on the morning that it ended up under water. Kind of glad it was gone after that because I wasn't looking forward to the 3rd round of bad luck with it!!

 

OMG!!! Glad as hell that you're still here with us.

I was giving your story some thought and your results seem to be in line with many who bought a larger heavier truck like yours. Ford's marketing and the auto industry marketing in general is so misleading.

My truck, a bare bones XLT Scab with 3.31 axles is literally the lightest and lightest duty ecoboost truck that you can get in a 4x4. My truck is the model that was used to define the MPG estimates on the 4x4 ecoboost trucks.

It's no secret that the ecoboost engine is perhaps the most finicky by the addition of weight, adjustments in tire size, terrain and weather of all the Ford engines.

My neighbor bought a 2012 Ecoboost Scab just like mine but his has the 3.55 elocker and he's getting nearly as good MPG's as me. He has the chrome package and is running 18's.

Likewise there is a customer on my last route that has a 2011 Plat eco 4x4 with 3.73's and has never left the pavement nor has ever pulled anything and complains like a sailor that his MPG's suck. I asked what he was getting on the freeway, he stated 17. I told him to quit his complaining, he has a decked out tow monster for pete's sakes.

When I was shopping for my truck in 2011, I looked at mine which was built in 01/2011 and had been sitting for about six months. I guess there were a few things that were making the truck less desirable such as the Scab and 3.31 axles. Perhaps it's not as well equipped as most people want.

Anyway, when I was shopping, there weren't too many eco's on the road yet and not much real world reporting here on FTE. So, I called two buddies how own Ford diesels and I explained what I was looking at and my intended purposes with the truck. The both (on separate conversations) stated that the ecoboost with 3.31's is more than stout, will perform all that I ask and the MPG's will be the star of the show,

Sorry for the lengthy post.

 

It's not just Ford that's to blame for the marketing scheme. All manufacturers are skewing the numbers to seem better. For example, Chevy has been saying that their V8 get better combined fuel economy than Ford Ecoboost. When I looked into it, the combined value was 1 MPG better and only because the V8 they were comparing it with didn't have nearly the power of the Ecoboost. Yet again you need to know your facts and look at what each manufacturer is comparing and what you'll be using the vehicle for. Then compare and drive the top contenders. My girlfriend loves her 2014 FX4 Ecoboost, but she went into buying it knowing it would only see as good fuel economy as her 90's truck, but way more power and torque.

 

Pretty much the same for me. After reading enough on various forums, I soon figured out the "pie in the sky" Ford numbers and the fluff pieces in magazines were not quite real.

However, what I have ended up with is an engine that gets the same mpg or a hair better towing, maybe 1 to 1.5 mpg better in mixed driving, and 2 to 2.5 mpg better highway miles. But with a much more powerful engine. There is no comparison WRT to engine power.

The old engine was a 2005 5.4L w/ 4spd transmission.

 

They're at it again up here in Canada. Just saw the new Ram 1500 commercial and they advertise it as getting 40 MPG which according to them is 9 MPG better than the Ecoboost. I still can't believe it's legal to screw with people like that.

 

It should be up to the individual to understand the factors that dictate fuel economy numbers, if you let an advertisement educate you, you are asking for trouble with regards to real world outcomes. If you buy a truck with tall gearing, it will give better mileage than a max tow with shorter gearing and will not have the ability to tow as much, its all a trade off, one or the other.

 

Yes I'm well aware how gearing works. My EB had the 3.55 rear so it's not like I bought a max tow package truck and expected miracles. Like I said I never expected the advertised 31 or 32 MPG but I did expect low 20's which also did not happen. I'm sure many other people have been fooled by the ads.

 

It seems like there is a wide spread on what kind of mpgs people get with an Eco-boost. It seems if you got a good one they are great, some others not so much. Much the same as the old 6.0. My uncle and my coworker both bought 06 6.0 diesels with the same gearing and transmission. Co worker got 19 mpg and my uncles truck never broke 16
Mpg. I must have got a good ecoboost, I get 21 mpg consistently driving it to work.