Alex - I hadn't thought about a fuel leak, but it would have to be in the pressurized system ahead of the flow meter. I say that because I park the truck in the garage and a leak out of the tank would be noticed. However, that would explain the problem of an optimistic LoM and poor MPG. Your 21.2 actual would be superb!

TEC - Your 2010 sounds much like mine. And yet the 2011 is pretty close. That's disconcerting as I like things to be consistent.

Bill - Welcome to the club! You even got the right color! Congrat's. But, did re-programming work on the Escape?

 

You know, there is another variable in addition to the transducer; the amount of fuel that is in the tank when you fill it.

I have no idea how the truck figures out how much fuel is in the tank, but it probably can be quite variable, depending on how you top it off, plus the individual pump that you're pumping from. However, how does the truck know how much fuel is actually in the tank? It can't "really" know, other than to note that the truck was stopped, and the fuel sensor in the tank says that it's "full" or very close to full, or slightly over full? So the computer guesses that you have however many gallons equals a full tank (23 or 36), and moves on.

If your habit is to slightly over-fill, it will be off one way, and if your habit is to slightly under-fill, it will be off another.

 

Was averaging about 25 overall MPG, but after the reprogramming, MPG dropped to about 22.5.

 

But was it more accurate, or less accurate?

 

I guess I don't really know how the truck knows how much fuel has been used. Surely it isn't just tracking the fuel level from the sending unit, as that's a very gross indicator. And on the other end, it knows how long the injectors are held open, so it could add all of that up - but any error whatsoever multiplied by the millions of instances would not be accurate.

So, surely they have a fuel flow transducer? Does anyone know, and where it is?

 

Who knows? When it went bye bye on Saturday, the overall MPG: 20.3

But most of this was city driving, mostly to the supermarket. Down the steep hill to the market, then back up the steep hill to our residencia.

When it went bye bye, the Escape had 4,235 miles on it since I leased it 10/15/2012. I'm retired, so I don't drive very much anymore.

Prior 2011 F150 Lariat 5.0L 2WD Super Crew overall MPG: 14.3. It managed to climb to 15.3 after we drove to Santa Barbara and back (250 miles R/T), but that 15.3 figure didn't last long once we returned home.

 

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

 

BB - Thanks. But since several people have reported that their truck's indicated MPG is quite close to the actual MPG, so I'm not sure it is a corporate decision on Ford's part. If that were true then all of the trucks would be way off.

 

I certainly hope it's not a corporate decision but the fact that four trucks in a row had the same problem and the lady lawyer telling me they knew it was wrong and were not going to fix it mitigates against that.

I have several good friends, every one an airline pilot (I'm not one but I fly small planes a lot) who tell me their mileage is pretty good. But not one has ever checked that with a calculator at a gas pump.....guess they are too used to a first officer telling them what their gross weight and CG is.

In any case I think the several reports of troubling MPG results here indicates that there is work to be done by Ford to keep commitments to customer which they do a superb job in most other respects.

BTW: I LOVE my new truck....it is an order of magnitude bette than the same model in 2010 which I had.
BB:-)

 

Remember, this thread is about the delta between the indicated and actual MPG. Not what the MPG is as opposed to the window sticker's claim. It just so happens that I have both issues, but am trying to keep this thread focused on real vs indicated MPG.

Thanks.

 

Gary:
That's good....let's focus on the delta between indicated and actual. That is a damned lie and the delta between the sticker and the indicated and the actual is another pair of damned lies. Even the sales people at Ford dealerships call it that in private....and sometimes in public. They know that the sticker lie is the result of politics with the EPA and CAFE goals. But customers still pay for those lies and customers don't care who told them.

I don't think that there is another term which fits the reality we see, actual vs. indicated or sticker vs both of them. If there is I want to hear it and I would love to see the proof of that too. Gimme the numbers!

I have had both a Mercedes and a BMW car in which the indicated and the actual MPG was dead nuts!....no variation...nada...zero....and that delta was zilch for the entire life of the car which was about 200,000 miles for the BMW; the Mercedes is still here. If BMW and Mercedes can do that so can Ford.

A lie is a lie and what we see is either a lie or the result of sloppiness in design and manufacturing which is a blemish on the otherwise superb character of the trucks I have had.

BB:-)

 

Again, several people on here have said their truck's indicated is quite close to actual. Perhaps we need a poll to see how many are close and how many aren't?

 

I'm one of the lucky ones I suppose who's lie o meter and actual fuel consumption were / are close enough that I no longer need to monitor. 2011 Scab 4x4 XLT with few frills and 265-70-17 tires.

As for advertised vs actual vs lie o meter, the advertised MPG's are listed on every truck MSRP the same but they represent Ford's lightest and lightest duty offering with that particular engine. Factory tire size, gear ratios and options don't change those numbers on the MSRP even though these items directly affect one's actual MPG's.

So, is the delta narrower on the less equipped trucks than on the higher end models? Is there a preset somewhere that we can't access? We all know that higher end trucks are slightly heavier and have bigger heavier wheels and tires.

You can't reasonably compare trucks to cars. In the sedan world there's no off road or towing packages, no options for gear ratios, larger wheels and tires, etc.

I do kow one thing, if I didn't trust the lie o meter on my truck, I wouldn't use it. In fact, this is the first vehicle that I've ever owned that has the option for a constant MPG display and I find it quite distracting.

 

It's good that this subject is finally getting aired. I had not known, for instance, that all the trucks have the same MPG stickers if their engines are the same. That would explain why my 4X4 2010 Lariat was so lousy compared to the sticker.

That is another reason to be very unhappy with the politics and fibs conveyed by those stickers because they are used by the general public to make comparative decisions about which vehicle to buy. Those stickers reinforce that confusion by also advertising the money that a year's worth of fuel will cost at the MPG listed. That is borderline fraud and it would not be allowed were it not perpetrated by the damned government.

Another fact....and one that is kinda fun....when my 2010 was above about 4000 feet in the Sierra the actual MPG (vice indicated which I stopped looking at) went up into the 19 to 20 MPG range. I assume that was because the thinner air caused the fuel metering system to reduce fuel flow to avoid loading the engine up. So if that's what is going on maybe some entrepreneur will come up with a gizmo that will let us select our MPG vs power:-). That would put all the "lies" to bed.

BTW: Thanks for these exchanges; I really enjoy talking with intelligent people who are paying attention when so many are not.

BB

 

I probably should add some detail to the idea about MPG at altitude above:

I fly a Beechcraft Bonanza airplane with a 285 HP IO520 engine; "IO520" means Injected and Opposed cylinders with 520 cubic inches. As with all "altitude engines" there has to be a mixture control that is used to reduce fuel flow as the airplane climbs thus avoiding load up and eventual stoppage of the engine. Reducing the mixture (fuel flow) also changes the HP but less HP is needed at altitude because the air is thinner and thus produces less drag....you can fly faster at altitude than down low until you "run out of throttle" and HP declines faster than airspeed increases.

My truck appears to be doing that automatically for me.....but I'd like the get my dirty little hands on that.

So why not a mixture control on a truck? I certainly don't need all the power of my engine running around town but I need it pulling and climbing. If I can vary that I could also potentially select my fuel flow....MPG....just as I can do that in an airplane. ( BTW it's really good to have there because AvGas costs about $5/gallon.
BB