The mpg numbers are not set by Ford, but the EPA anyway, so mpg's will vary due to bed/cab size, 4wd or 2wd, axle gearing, driving style (which IMO makes a huge difference in mpg) etc. The window sticker shows possible highs and lows, as well as combined mpg, so the EPA ratings are not exactly what each individual will see. I do agree that an engine with small turbos like the 3.5 is a prime example. Many vehicles are falling short of advertised mpg now a days, just look at the Ford C Max and Fusion Hybrid. It was on the news not that long ago that most people are getting about 39 mpg, rather than the advertised 45 mpg.

 

CR is a joke! My dad used to swear by CR years ago until it rated the Mazda version of the Ford Explorer a lot higher than the Explorer. Everyone, except CR I guess, knows they were both made by Ford and were identical except for badging and some sheet metal.

 

Here's my problem with the article (read it today as well). My problem is that they didn't detail the duty cycle when comparing the economy numbers in their test. EPA has a very specific duty cycle and methodology for achieving their figures. If CR is constantly accelerating and loading the engine, turbocharged engines are at a disadvantage. The whole point of modern turbocharged engines is that they only guzzle fuel when accelerating or loading the engine. Once you hit a steady state, the engines are more efficient than their larger naturally aspirated counter parts. My Saturn Sky Redline had far superior fuel economy compared to its naturally aspirated version. The tests from all the car magazines bared this out. Until I see a nice graph detailing how fast they accelerated to what speeds and how often, I'm skeptical.

 

CR does specify how they do their testing, but I do think there are some intangibles like summer vs winter fuels, how quickly engineers accelerate, etc. Quoted from the article linked here:

New EPA mileage figures

"Consumer Reports tests fuel mileage in controlled conditions and in the real world. We use precise fuel meters spliced into the cars’ fuel lines, and adjust for outside temperature in our calculations. City mileage is conducted on our track using a 1.1-mile loop of stop-and-go driving combined with idling to simulate traffic and stoplights. Highway tests are done on a section of local interstate, run in both directions to minimize the effect of wind. We also drive all the cars on a 31-mile route that includes a mixture of highway, rural roads, and around-town driving. All tests are run several times using multiple drivers, and our overall mileage figure is an average of these tests."

 

That's great, but he EPA test is a dyno, no variables. Just as you can use the EPA figure to compare cars, you can use CR's numbers to do the same. Just don't expect to get the same MPGs as the EPA or CR.

YMMV.

 

CR's finding of 15 MPG's does fall in line with the fine print on the window sticker.

Ford advertises the EB as being able to achieve "up to" 22 mpg's highway. The truck used is no doubt a 4x2 Scab with a 3.15 axle. Oh, and this configuration still gets you somewhere near a 7500 lb tow rating sports fans.

If a shopper hasn't done enough research and does not possess the ability to understand how cab configurations, body weight and seasonal changes affect overall MPG's then he/she deserves to subscribe to CR for all of their automotive needs.

Said uninformed customer will be rolling out in a Tundra instead of anything with American badging.

 

Tim, you clearly have a bias against CR. I have always been a bit negative on their treating cars/trucks as appliances and not taking into account the "cool" factor, but I do not think it follows that CR readers always buy Toyotas, and in fact many recent Fords like the Fusion have been helped tremendously by CR's ratings. In addition, the CR "don't touch these vehicles with a 10 foot pole" list is always quite close to reality--and is usually loaded with Chrysler vehicles and other klinkers in the market place. As I said, I believe that CR has pushed the American automakers to get their reliability ratings up and that is not a bad thing IMO.

You can often find a pattern of problems, for instance bad Explorer transmissions in some years, in the CR ratings. When I was thinking of a used Explorer, I looked at the CR ratings to learn which years to avoid and which years were OK. And it's definitely not an absolute, but there is SOMETHING there when you see a year or three with black blotches on a trans, engine, or some other area of a car.

Ford pickups have always done very well in CR testing, and I will use their test reports to determine which vehicle *on my own list* might be the best one to buy. I do not like Toyotas, so regardless of how well they do in CR, I won't be buying one, thanks.

It is all to be taken with a grain of salt, but any and all information I find to help me find a reliable vehicle is something that I appreciate. Instead of knocking CR, I cheer when Ford does better than the other American mfrs in CR ratings.

George

 

2011 3.5L 4x2 3.55 LS diff. supercrew trip A computer never touched and 26k miles. Avg. 19.2 MPG 1/2 city 1/2 highway. @ 55mph I've gotten 26.1 mpg on computer, @75mph 22 mpg on computer, towing 17' Aquasport 17.3 mpg. Not one problem with powertrain to date other than "clunk" which was fixed in 2hours.

My experience is better than EPA for ecoboost.

2012 Raptor 4.10 rear. 4k miles absolutely babied around town. 90% city 10% highway. Untouched trip A computer says 13.9 mpg. EPA sticker is 14cty 16hwy. The way I granny this hot rod around town my opinion is I get worse than EPA.

Just my 2cents, but I think the driver has a lot to do with this.
I also agree with those who feel a CR bias. It is almost a religion with the Toyota Camry.

 

X2
...and I don't care what CR has to say about the 2014 Tundra. It is so ugly that it has a face only a mother could love. I wouldn't own one if they dropped one off in my driveway for free.

 

I just located my 2013 CR buyer's guide and observe that the Fusion looks better in reliability than the Camry in recent years, and the Focus is right up there with the Corolla. This makes me proud of Ford and CR is putting it out there. I view this as a plus for Ford and believe this is the reason they are selling as many vehicles as they are.

There is never perfection in reliability reports, but when non-car friends ask me to recommend a car, I will always try to pick something that has good ratings in CR, and will steer them away from the "do not buy" vehicles like Chrysler minivans, etc.

Again, you guys seem so hostile toward CR but where else does someone go for car advice? Their brother in law? Their uncle? Even the forums like this one make things like the mod motor spark plug blowout seem like a big scary problem, but looking at CR ratings for the mod motors, they were generally better than average or much better than average for all years.

George

 

Are you serious? That's what the current model Tundra looks like??? That front end is ugly!

No wonder I've never seen one and didn't know the looks changed.... nobody will buy one!

 

Checking CR for reliability ratings is just good research and they should be checked as it's poor journalism to skew the facts.

My point was more towards new car testing. There are things that need to be taken into consideration on these turbo engines that CR does not give credit to such as break-in periods, axle rations, etc.

 

CR isn't perfect, but it can be useful as a data point, just like JD Power, magazine reviews, test drives, etc.

As for Ecoboost mileage, I know my truck is capable of meeting the EPA numbers on the sticker, I've done it. But you have to hypermile like crazy, keep it under 60, etc. IMO, it's not worth it, and I usually average 16-17 mpg in mixed driving. I'm happy with that, it's much better than I ever did with various 5.4-powered trucks before, and I have a lot more power and torque.

 

Tim.

Got to agree with you on the mileage. I drive a '11 FX4 3.5TT, 3.73 18 inch and consistently average 16/21 during the summer and 15/20, including idle time during the winter in Minnesota. I have found that going over 70 on the hwy really starts to eat into the mileage. The instant mileage read-out tells me all I need to know when I start driving too fast. I also use mid-grade fuel (89) because I get better mileage with it and I can buy it for the same price as regular (87). I use the cruise a lot because it's steadier than my rt. foot and I have a suspicion that the computer sets the cam/valve timing better for mileage when it senses a steady speed. I can be driving at say 45, set the cruise and the instant mileage readout will show an increase in mileage over driving with the foot. My cruise control is very accurate.

 

Well, pretty much common knowledge for 40 years..........