Gasoline engines need to run close to 14.7 : 1 air to fuel. The =/- is a couple points either way, depending on load etc. The computer takes care of that for you. Offering a mixture control to the driver would guarantee engine failures and warranty claims.

As for your continued exasperation over the EPA numbers, well, you should do a bit of research. The EPA numbers were ALWAYS to be used to compare mileage from model to model. The test is devised to "run" each tested vehicle over the same course on a dyno. Read on:

The Truth About EPA City / Highway MPG Estimates - Feature - Car and Driver

So, do you have any actual figures of what the "lie-o-meter" reports vs. what you have actually calculated?

 

Well....the EPA numbers are still lies as to the real world where we operate our trucks and cars. They mislead the public and then they double down on that by showing the dollars that would be required to operate the vehicle for a year based on those phony MPG numbers. Any poor soul who then went home to make a budget based on the EPA numbers would have a cause of action were the potential defendant not the gummint which can't be sued.

I fervently hope we all get tired of this BS.

BB

 

Well if someone is too stupid to understand what the EPA numbers are meant to do, the gas mileage will be the least of their worries.

Meanwhile, do you have any figures for a 2015 F150?

 

Just curious - I noticed here: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...l#post15552049, that you may be using tow/haul mode for daily driving and it sounds also like you're sometimes switching between tow/haul and normal. Could that be part of the issue? I seem to remember that tow/haul has it's own set of MPG/usage calcs, and that when you switch you're actually switching between two sets of data. If nothing else, it seems like an easy way for an error to creep into the readings if you switch in the middle of a tank.

 

I'd thought about that myself and have come to the conclusion that the average MPG that the LoM gives isn't directly impacted by the mode of the transmission. (It is surely indirectly impacted as the engine spins faster, which may mean more or less MPG.) I've come to that conclusion by switching from T/H, to Sport, and back to Normal and have watched the average MPG and it doesn't change whatsoever. But, I really don't know that for sure.

Having said that, the only tank where I used T/H more than a mile or two was the last tank shown in the table. So the two previous tanks, which had deltas, were run in Normal on the transmission.

 

In all my previous vehicles I hand calculated the mileage. Every tank. I still carry the calculator in my F150 console out of habit. After hand checking and comparing against the "Lie-O-Meter" for a few months I quit hand checking. The trucks calculations were close and that was a either a little above or a little below my hand work. I'm not calculating a trajectory to try to hit the moon and since I was both a little above and a little below by hand I think that I am pretty close in the ballpark when I quote what the dashboard tells me. I have never reset trip meter 2 (that should take care of over/under filling a tank or two) and at 65,000 miles it tells me I've averaged 19.2mpg

 

The reported vs actual MPG on my new truck are within expected tolerances and I'm very happy about it because the same numbers on my old 2010 F150 were so divergent. That was a SuperCrew, short bed Lariat with the 5.4L V8.

I drove 328 miles from the dealer's lot and put 19.6 gallons in the 36 gallon tank. That produced 16.73 MPG. The numbers reported on the truck's display were 328 miles, 19.3 gallons = 16.9 MPG.

I expect that, as per the book, those numbers will get better and the divergence will get smaller as the engine "breaks in." I am happy with these results and I'm happy I bought the truck.

I have the 3.6 L EcoBoost engine in a SuperCrew short bed Lariat.

BB

 

Glad to see you guys are getting pretty close to what the truck is reporting. It is easy to see how there can be a variance on each tank as the truck is measuring the fuel as it is used, and we are measuring how much we put in. And, as as been pointed out, we can over or under fill each time, so there can be a difference. But, it should average out over several tanks. Unfortunately, mine isn't.

 

I just had a thought. What happens if you don't "top off" at the pump?

I'm going to run an experiment. I will record both the "first" stop at the pump, plus the "top off" gallons. Wonder if this will make any difference in the calculated values?

 

Shouldn't make any change to the calculated. That's because, I hope, the truck is measuring the amount of fuel used and isn't working off the fuel gauge. But, stranger things have happened, so let us know.

 

OK here's the deal IMHO:
I have a new F150 Lariat with the 3.5 ecoboost engine. I have 1200 miles on it and the actual, calculated, MPG is a lot closer the MPG indicated in the on board read out in this truck than it was in my other three. But it is always (!!) better in the onboard readout than the calculated number. Now it's only about 2 MPG but ALWAYS better than actual.

This is my fourth Ford truck in a row in which the indicated was better than the calculated MPG....in the other three it was LOTS different but an error (lie?) is still an error. And that error was always there for well over 100K miles in each truck. I have had both a BMW and a Mercedes in which the numbers were exactly the same for 100K++ miles so I know that accuracy can be achieved. I think Ford is doing better than before because somebody at Ford must have figured out that there was a problem and customers noticed it.

Then there was a post here by a guy who thinks that people who don't "understand" the purpose of the Fed EPA window sticker MPG numbers on a new truck are "stupid." I guess he thinks I'm one of those and maybe you are too. The sticker MPG on my new truck said it would get 18MPG in the city and 21 on the road. It doesn't do that. On my 2010 the numbers were 14 and 18 but the calculated average number for 143,000 miles was 13.64.

If the Fed EPA numbers are meant only as a comparator with other vehicles and not as an indication of what a new owner should expect then it would seem that a different measurement should be used; instead of an MPG number which is always high by a bunch and always misleading so we "stupid" people will get confused the EPA and Ford should use a 100 based (percentage) scale used.....80 would be below the competition and 110 would be above. But those who think it's OK to mislead the car buyer because they are "stupid" are too stupid to figure that out!

BB

 

Get ready for the biggest bond holder collapse in history. Why should bond holders never hold the bag?


QUOTE=bonanzabucko;15547726]I have a new 2015 F150 Lariat with 240 miles on it this morning that is my 4th Ford truck in the last 25 years. Each one has had a very large error in the onboard reporting of MPG....always reporting higher MPG than actual. That reporting error has to be on purpose or it would be variable between over and under reporting in those four trucks.

My last F150, a 2010 Lariat was REALLY off. The sticker when I bought it new said 14 city and 18 highway. For 143000 miles the real number was about 13.64...I kept records.

The first time I ran into this was with a new 1995 Explorer: I took it goose hunting in North Dakota and passed a sign that said, "next fuel 120 miles." My onboard display said I had about 140 left in the tank. I barely made it so I kept a record for the next 5500 miles on that trip which went from North Dakota to Illinois to Louisiana and back to San Diego. The error was on the order of 12%. I went to the dealer who sold me the truck and he said "it's an average." I said, "How about a 5500 mile average and error" and he then said, "the factory and the EPA set those numbers...we can't do anything about it."

So I called Ford HQ starting in El Segundo the West Coast HQ and ending up, after about a month, with Dearborn. Finally a lady lawyer called me and said, (paraphrasing)" it's wrong, we know it's wrong, we aren't going to fix it and this is the last you will hear from us."

So this is what we have: 1.)A danged lie told by the EPA on the new truck sticker (gotta expect that from the damned gummint I guess) and 2.)A smaller lie told by Ford in the readouts in our trucks.

I was so mad about the Explorer and Ford's response as above that I bought a Toyota which was a very fine truck. Then Toyota decided to act like Dodge and make a monster truck with lots of plastic instead of steel that fell apart in the bad Mexican roads I sometimes drive and I went back to Ford starting with the 2010 Lariat above, That was a superb truck except for the mileage lie and so is my new one now.....except for the MPG lies.

I think that this problem is of such long standing and so large that it must reflect a corporate decision by Ford management. It's on the order of the obviously lousy quality of the owners's manuals which have been lousy so long -- see my post about the manual for my new Lariat telling saying I must get the truck towed to the dealer if I lose the remote key gizmo.....kinda hard to find a big enough donkey in Baja Mexico to tow me about 350 miles. :-)

I guess I could buy a Chevy but I won't since Obama screwed the bondholders at GM and I can't stand Dodge for similar reasons.

BB[/QUOTE]

 

Because the law has been on the books for about a hundred years...maybe more...when a company goes BK the bond holders "stand first in line" for whatever assets there may be to pay off creditors. That is because the bond holders lent the company cash money. After them the other creditors get paid.....suppliers and share owners.

The Obama administration abrogated those laws and gave the assets to the labor unions first.

BB

 

No politics gents, please.

 

Couple of different fill ups for me:

This tank was a mix of driving; town, 2 lane highway/country roads(55-60 mph), interstate(73mph)



Pump read 21.3 gals, so 16.9 mpg yields a difference of 1 mpg. This was the first tank I have thought to keep record of, so the difference may be from different fill up methods.


This tank is a little interstate and mostly 2 lane roads. I know from the past these trucks love the 55-60 mph so it is better mileage. I have also notice a little expected increase since rolling over 1000 miles.



Pump read 13.0 gals, so 17.4 mpg = 0.8 mpg difference.

Different yes, but with human error, pump differences, etc. the difference is acceptable to me. I am not saying the truck computer is accurate, but I based my calculations off of a gas pump, who believes those are accurate?? Yeah, I know they are third party inspected for accuracy, what yearly?? But I still find it hard to fully trust anyone in the business of selling gas, Exhibit 1: $0.60/gal increase in price overnight for no apparent reason.