Big Blue
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 32,875
Likes: 48
From: Northeast, OK
Thanks! To this point I'm loving it, with but a minor niggle. I don't yet have my head around how to use the navigation system, but it appears to be difficult to use to look at things other than your intended route. Our two other nav systems, the one on the 2011 Murano we sold to buy the truck, and my wife's 2014 MB GLK, had a **** that allowed zooming and panning. Not so this thing, and it doesn't panning doesn't seem to be easily done - but maybe I'm missing something.
As for MPG, we took it for a 250 mile drive yesterday. Everything from OK back roads around Tenkiller reservoir to 75 MPH turnpike running. Started with the averaged MPG on the computer showing 16.9, and returned with it up to 17.4. Some back-of-the-envelope math says that it would have taken an average of 17.7 MPG on yesterday's drive to get the average up to 17.4. That's not the 19 the window sticker touts, but it seems to be getting better, and there's only 400 miles on the truck. And, this is just the computer's guestimate of MPG, and I've not found vehicle computers to be all that close heretofore.
As for MPG, we took it for a 250 mile drive yesterday. Everything from OK back roads around Tenkiller reservoir to 75 MPH turnpike running. Started with the averaged MPG on the computer showing 16.9, and returned with it up to 17.4. Some back-of-the-envelope math says that it would have taken an average of 17.7 MPG on yesterday's drive to get the average up to 17.4. That's not the 19 the window sticker touts, but it seems to be getting better, and there's only 400 miles on the truck. And, this is just the computer's guestimate of MPG, and I've not found vehicle computers to be all that close heretofore.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,477
Likes: 19
From: Sheffield, AL
Gary, as you know, I drive older vehicles, but some trusted and knowledgeable friends, who drive newer vehicles, have said that it takes as much as 5000 miles for modern vehicles to break-in and deliver the best fuel mileage.
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 32,875
Likes: 48
From: Northeast, OK
David - I'm hoping that's the case. Not that I won't like the truck if it only gets 19 on the highway, but that's only half of what Janey's GLK gets so, even with the price difference between gas and diesel, that's big. I'd like to see something like 21 on the highway as that's where the Murano was, so this would be basically a swap.
Senior User
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Thanks! To this point I'm loving it, with but a minor niggle. I don't yet have my head around how to use the navigation system, but it appears to be difficult to use to look at things other than your intended route. Our two other nav systems, the one on the 2011 Murano we sold to buy the truck, and my wife's 2014 MB GLK, had a **** that allowed zooming and panning. Not so this thing, and it doesn't panning doesn't seem to be easily done - but maybe I'm missing something.
As for MPG, we took it for a 250 mile drive yesterday. Everything from OK back roads around Tenkiller reservoir to 75 MPH turnpike running. Started with the averaged MPG on the computer showing 16.9, and returned with it up to 17.4. Some back-of-the-envelope math says that it would have taken an average of 17.7 MPG on yesterday's drive to get the average up to 17.4. That's not the 19 the window sticker touts, but it seems to be getting better, and there's only 400 miles on the truck. And, this is just the computer's guestimate of MPG, and I've not found vehicle computers to be all that close heretofore.
As for MPG, we took it for a 250 mile drive yesterday. Everything from OK back roads around Tenkiller reservoir to 75 MPH turnpike running. Started with the averaged MPG on the computer showing 16.9, and returned with it up to 17.4. Some back-of-the-envelope math says that it would have taken an average of 17.7 MPG on yesterday's drive to get the average up to 17.4. That's not the 19 the window sticker touts, but it seems to be getting better, and there's only 400 miles on the truck. And, this is just the computer's guestimate of MPG, and I've not found vehicle computers to be all that close heretofore.
Old School Hot Rodder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,472
Likes: 11
From: Exmore, VA
If it is still done the way EPA was calculating fuel economy, it is a somewhat "pie in the sky" value. The newer model and method are closer to the real world, but still a bit on the high side. Used to be best economy was around 45 mph.
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 32,875
Likes: 48
From: Northeast, OK
True. I was taught that the wind resistance goes up by the square of the speed, although I've recently seen some revisions of that suggesting that it goes up faster than that.
I know on my wife's GLK there is a big difference between 73 and 78. Apparently the turbos come on by 78 and the MPG suffers noticeably, although there's no boost gauge so you have to figure that out by watching the average MPG drop. However, on the truck I didn't notice much difference in boost between those two speeds and didn't see the average MPG drop. But, the laws of physics haven't been repealed, so you are correct - I shouldn't expect sticker MPG at higher than tested speeds.
I know on my wife's GLK there is a big difference between 73 and 78. Apparently the turbos come on by 78 and the MPG suffers noticeably, although there's no boost gauge so you have to figure that out by watching the average MPG drop. However, on the truck I didn't notice much difference in boost between those two speeds and didn't see the average MPG drop. But, the laws of physics haven't been repealed, so you are correct - I shouldn't expect sticker MPG at higher than tested speeds.
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 32,875
Likes: 48
From: Northeast, OK
Anyway, the EPA #'s are much better now than when they first came out. Ford's 1981 Light Truck Fact Book shows Dad's truck was supposed to get 17 MPG on the highway when new. Dad said it always got 10.5.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Old School Hot Rodder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,472
Likes: 11
From: Exmore, VA
Gary, interesting facts on a few I have owned, Shelby got 22 mpg at 75 mph, 18 at 55 mph Oldsmobile Jetfire got 24 mpg at 80 mph, but 20 at 55 mph. Both of our diesel GM B bodies got 30-31 at 55-70 mph. Best gas mileage car I ever had was a 1981 Omni with the VW 1.7L gas engine and 4 speed, it got 40.
Our 1970.5 Falcon wagon got 15-16 with a 302 2 bbl. after I converted it to a 4 barrel, added dual exhausts and 289 4 barrel heads it went to 20-22.
Our 1970.5 Falcon wagon got 15-16 with a 302 2 bbl. after I converted it to a 4 barrel, added dual exhausts and 289 4 barrel heads it went to 20-22.
Thread Starter
|
FTE Legend
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 32,875
Likes: 48
From: Northeast, OK
Just got back from another run, and filled up along the way. For the first 495.2 miles it turned in 17.52 MPG, and the computer said it was getting 17.5 MPG. Pretty close. And, that was pulled down with a lot of idling early on at the dealership.
Plus, with roughly 90 miles on this tank the computer thinks the truck is now up to 19.3 MPG. The drive consisted of mostly highway driving at 55 and then 65 MPH, with a little bit town driving.
Bill - Those are interesting numbers. Was the Shelby geared pretty highly?
Plus, with roughly 90 miles on this tank the computer thinks the truck is now up to 19.3 MPG. The drive consisted of mostly highway driving at 55 and then 65 MPH, with a little bit town driving.
Bill - Those are interesting numbers. Was the Shelby geared pretty highly?
Old School Hot Rodder
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,472
Likes: 11
From: Exmore, VA
Shelby had 3.89 rear gears and I was running F70-14 bias ply tires. Secret was at 3500 rpm you were doing 70, the cam came on at 3200, most of the mechanical advance was in so it was running at peak efficiency, and only on 2 of 8 barrels or max of 232.5 cfm. You also have to remember Shelby stripped a lot of weight off, car weighed 2800 lbs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PinkStroker
1999 - 2003 7.3L Power Stroke Diesel
91
Nov 13, 2008 10:51 AM