Pathetic Gas Mileage

[NickF1011]

One thing that is inherently different with a boosted engine, or any high-output engine, is that it's fun to feel those horses kicking you in the seat of the pants. I've been driving mine in a relatively miserly manner, but I really do like the way the 2.0 reacts when I sink my foot into the throttle. I like it a lot!

 

But in my case, that's a tradeoff that I'm willing to make. If I was really going for the maximum MPG, I'd probably have bought a VW TDI diesel.

 

If the output is the same as it is on a comparable naturally aspirated engine, the seat of the pants feeling will be exactly the same too. Torque and horsepower are what they are. How they come about is irrelevant. I stomp on the 3.7 in my Edge plenty. :shrug:

[Tazzel]

I have a brand new SE 2.0L less then 800 miles and I am averaging 19.6 around town only, I rarely jump on the highway and when I do my MPG gauge steady climbs. I would say that something is defiantly wrong and I think the the dealership techs are putting it off as long as they can to not have to figure it out. Hoping a fix will be reported.

[NickF1011]

I have a brand new SE 2.0L less then 800 miles and I am averaging 19.6 around town only, I rarely jump on the highway and when I do my MPG gauge steady climbs. I would say that something is defiantly wrong and I think the the dealership techs are putting it off as long as they can to not have to figure it out. Hoping a fix will be reported.

 

That actually sounds right about what I would expect it to be based on the EPA numbers, especially without any break-in time.

[Elf911]

OP I am also in NY but in NYC if you are too then yes I am getting "bad" fuel economy too. When I was out in Long Island I got much much higher MPG I don't feel this is anything wrong with your vehicle since I also have a 2.0. Titanium escape also

[Elf911]

Oh come on. A turbo is nothing more an an air pump. Given that they are both tuned properly, a naturally aspirated engine with a given output similar to a turbocharged one is going to use the exact same amount of fuel. There's absolutely nothing inherently less fuel efficient about forced induction.

 

Wrong and right but yes a turbo does "help" by allow a lower displacement / cylinder engine to make more power but under load which in modern systems means boost unlike my race car it involves fuel....more air does involve more fuel. It's an air pump that allows a lighter package not always a more fuel efficient one.

[blockisle9]

Mine is:

 

Best: 26.5 on a highway trip to Vt.

Worst: 13.2 - and 13-15 is what I get around town.

 

That's what my 2.0 gets also.

[klemsaba]

Speed limits are 75 in Kansas and Oklahoma now! Even worse for gas mileage.

 

The highway mileage is affected by high speeds, hilly terrain, and weather conditions. This body style (2012 Focus is the same way), doesn't like speeds over 65MPH, the gas mileage over that speed drops greater than any other vehicle I have owned. Most people drive faster than this on the highway, and many speed limits are now 70MPH.

[GaryG]

I was optimistic about the '12 Explorer 2.0L EcoBoost until I test drove one. I got to plug-in my Scangauge II from my "11 Explorer V6. Both had the same Limited package and I ran the A/C like I do in my Explorer. The acceleration was about the same in the EcoBoost and my V6, but the turbo caused the 2.0L to drop MPG under the same acceleration rate as my V6. The bottom line was higher RPM was needed for the EcoBoost 2.0L to push that heavy Explorer with the A/C running. The power was there to do it, but it was not worth the drop in MPG over my V6.

 

I think the 3.5L EcoBoost would not have the problems that the 2.0L Ecoboost has and I'll even bet that the 3.5L EcoBoost would get even better MPG than my standard 3.5L V6 in the Explorer under the same driving conditions.

 

Why would using the turbo cause the engine to drink more gas? Closed-Loop! Your in Closed after the engine warms up and under most normal driving conditions. Closed-Loop means the PCM is controlling the air-fuel ratios for maximum fuel efficiency. Open-Loop means the PCM is not controlling air-fuel ratios for the higher efficiency as during warm-up and high acceleration. My bet is the turbo causes the PCM to go Open-Loop and efficiency drops off real fast. I've already stated that during DFSO (fuel-cut) our engines go Open-Loop. This is because the PCM cuts fuel completely and there is no need for a air- fuel ratio during DFSO..

[PajamaGuy]

I’ve complained about my gas milage. Driving around my New England town, mostly obeying the 30-50 mph speed limits and with occasional 10-20 mile runs on the interstate at 75-80 mph, I’ve gotten an average of 14-15 mpg from my 2013 4-cyl, tubocharged 2.0L EcoBoost AWD Ford Escape. When I went up to Vermont on a 350 mi. round trip, I got 26.5 mpg, and most of those miles were on 55 mph. main roads with maybe 50 miles of 4-lane 65 mph highways. That 26.5 is what has raised my average mpg over my total 3,100 miles to 17.5 mpg.

 

Full disclosure prods me to say that for most of my driving, especially around town, I drive at the speed limits, but on entrance ramps of interstates I usually “floor it”, and where the limits are 65, I’m usually 10 mph faster.

 

My window sticker says 21 city and 28 highway, so 15 is more than 28% less than advertised, right? Well, not really. In discussion with my 2013 Escape brethren at the Blue Oval forum, I’ve come to realize that one major gas milage component that I have failed to consider is idling. And it’s all my wife’s fault.

During our 13 years in Houston, my wife took me to work (at NASA, .8 miles from our townhouse) at 5:30 a.m., then on most days she substitute-taught Special Needs at various schools in the area. I either walked home or she picked me up after school. I only drove the car on weekends, and on some nights. Our 2010 Fusion had Remote Start, but I used it only occasionally because we had a garage. My wife rarely used it. I averaged 17 mpg. with the Fusion’s 3L V6 – but most streets were 4-lanes, and my driving style was binary, gas-on or gas-off. And then NASA retired both the Space Shuttle and me. So we exchanged the flat 4-lane Texas highway system for the New England hilly country roads and 5 grandchildren , car and booster seats, backpacks, and absolutely no comprehension of what it takes to keep a car clean. “Just take it to Parente’s and have it detailed, Grampy!” (Detailing that cost $20 in Houston, now costs $50 in Massachusetts…”)

 

So now it’s a 2013 Escape SEL, AWD, 2.0L EcoBoost with all the bells & whistles. My wife still substitute-teaches Special Needs 3-4 days a week, but I’m retired so I drive her to and from work. It’s winter in New England. She’s a wuss and likes the car to be warm, so REMOTE START gets used almost every day, and usually for the full 15 minutes – sometimes twice for 30 minutes! To that, add the 15 minutes that I usually sit in the parking lot when I pick her up and you have a minimum of 30 minutes of idling 3-4 days a week. Then add another 30 minutes for warming the car for Saturdays’ and Sundays’ ice skating, basketball, football, baseball, and soccer activities.

 

That totals between 2 and 2½ HOURS of idling. Given that the Remote Starts operate on high-idle @ about 1.2 Gallons-per-hour, and normal low idle is around 0.8 GPH, using an even 1.0 GPH is probably a good ballpark number.

 

So, take last week – 185 miles driven, 13.5 gallons to fill the tank. That’s 13.7 MPG right? WRONG! Deduct the 2 gallons of gas for idling and you get 16.1 MPG. And if it’s a cold week, I can easily believe I’ve spent 3 hours (3 gallons) of idle time – bingo, we’re up to 17.6 MPG. :stats:

 

Looking back, most of my fill-ups computed to 15 – 16 MPG. Using 3.0 hours of idling time would boost those numbers to 20.3 – 21.6 MPG. So, that’s not too bad for around town, stop-and-go driving.

Edited February 5, 2013 by PajamaGuy

[akirby]

My window sticker says 21 city and 28 highway, so 15 is more than 28% less than advertised, right?

 

Can we please stop saying "advertised" in relation to the window sticker? Ford is required BY LAW to post the EPA mileage on the window sticker. It's a Federal law. They don't have a choice. So it's not fair to blame any car mfr for "advertising" something that is required by law.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't something wrong with the vehicles - just don't call it "advertising".

[Escapism]

It's a Federal law. They don't have a choice. So it's not fair to blame any car mfr for "advertising" something that is required by law.

Can we blame Hyundai? Or should we blame the Feds?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Escapism

[akirby]

Can we blame Hyundai? Or should we blame the Feds?

 

Hyundai did the test wrong so they were reporting incorrect numbers. Blame Hyundai.

 

Ford did the test right and reported the correct numbers. Blame the Feds if you don't like the numbers.

[Escapism]

Hyundai did the test wrong so they were reporting incorrect numbers. Blame Hyundai.

 

Ford did the test right and reported the correct numbers. Blame the Feds if you don't like the numbers.

Oh I'm not blaming the anybody. I like my numbers. I'm just asking who does the actual testing. An EPA employee? Or a Hyundai employee? Seems to me it would be a conflict of interest if Hyundai does the testing and reports the numbers.

[akirby]

Oh I'm not blaming the anybody. I like my numbers. I'm just asking who does the actual testing. An EPA employee? Or a Hyundai employee? Seems to me it would be a conflict of interest if Hyundai does the testing and reports the numbers.

 

The mfrs do 85%-90% of the tests themselves and the EPA audits them. The EPA tests 10% - 15% themselves each year. So all mfrs self report most of their findings but they are audited by the EPA and subject to random testing.

[NickF1011]

Wrong and right but yes a turbo does "help" by allow a lower displacement / cylinder engine to make more power but under load which in modern systems means boost unlike my race car it involves fuel....more air does involve more fuel. It's an air pump that allows a lighter package not always a more fuel efficient one.

 

The amount of air coming into the engine is only going to be equal to the amount of fuel being burned which is only going to be equal to the output being generated. It doesn't matter whether that air comes in via a turbo or through natural aspiration. It's only going to be as much air as the engine is using to make power at that RPM. If it's the same power in both engines, ideally they'll both use the exact same amount of fuel to make it. Theoretically, the smaller displacement turbo engine should be more efficient as it will have less parasitic loss due to having a smaller rotational mass.

 

People just need to get over the idea that forced induction means bad fuel economy. The only reason this myth came about was because in the past, most forced-induction motors were only used in high performance applications where fuel economy usually sucks anyway.

 

:shrug:

[Elf911]

I was optimistic about the '12 Explorer 2.0L EcoBoost until I test drove one. I got to plug-in my Scangauge II from my "11 Explorer V6. Both had the same Limited package and I ran the A/C like I do in my Explorer. The acceleration was about the same in the EcoBoost and my V6, but the turbo caused the 2.0L to drop MPG under the same acceleration rate as my V6. The bottom line was higher RPM was needed for the EcoBoost 2.0L to push that heavy Explorer with the A/C running. The power was there to do it, but it was not worth the drop in MPG over my V6.

 

I think the 3.5L EcoBoost would not have the problems that the 2.0L Ecoboost has and I'll even bet that the 3.5L EcoBoost would get even better MPG than my standard 3.5L V6 in the Explorer under the same driving conditions.

 

Why would using the turbo cause the engine to drink more gas? Closed-Loop! Your in Closed after the engine warms up and under most normal driving conditions. Closed-Loop means the PCM is controlling the air-fuel ratios for maximum fuel efficiency. Open-Loop means the PCM is not controlling air-fuel ratios for the higher efficiency as during warm-up and high acceleration. My bet is the turbo causes the PCM to go Open-Loop and efficiency drops off real fast. I've already stated that during DFSO (fuel-cut) our engines go Open-Loop. This is because the PCM cuts fuel completely and there is no need for a air- fuel ratio during DFSO..

 

The engine still needs to maintain that air to fuel ratio so when pushing 17 psi into the motor the fueling needs to increase. It's why you can get 100+ hp per liter in a normal vehicle that isn't spinning to 9,000 rpm. Basically under no or low load you should just be driving a 2.0l 4 banger but get on it and hear that vacuum sound from the hood and boom fuel is spraying and forced air is getting pumped in by the turbo. As for direct injection it helps a lot to not waste fuel and helps cool the combustion chamber and allow only a reduced compression of 9.5-1 on a 17 psi stock motor! That's huge compared to the turbo motors of the 80's and 90's!

[mettech]

Oh come on. A turbo is nothing more an an air pump. Given that they are both tuned properly, a naturally aspirated engine with a given output similar to a turbocharged one is going to use the exact same amount of fuel. There's absolutely nothing inherently less fuel efficient about forced induction.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_turbo_charged_cars_use_more_fuel

 

and

 

http://www.autoline.tv/daily/

 

Episode 1064

 

Because

 

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/11/turbocharged-cars-dont-live-up-to-fuel-economy-hype-says-consumer-reports.html

 

Richard Truett, Powertrain Communications Manager at Ford echoed these sentiments. He said “a lot of it depends on how consumers use it” and “we’re discovering that people really enjoy the turbos.” In other words, buyers like the rush of acceleration they offer.

 

According to Truett, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 offered in the F-150 can deliver superior fuel economy to the company’s the 5.0-liter V8 engine “if you use the turbos smartly.” He also said you can’t have your cake and eat it too; you have to keep a light foot on the throttle to maximize efficiency.

Lower-than-expected real-world MPG numbers don’t appear to be dissuading buyers from opting for boosted pickups. Truett said as of last month “EcoBoost alone is about 42 percent of F-150 sales,” adding “it’s exceeded all expectations of sales and performance.”

Summing things up, Read offered some advice, “no drive schedule can be perfect to simulate what a customer is going to get, but [EPA scores are] better than ever as an indicator of what a customer is going to get.” As always, you mileage will vary.

Edited February 5, 2013 by mettech

[NickF1011]

The engine still needs to maintain that air to fuel ratio so when pushing 17 psi into the motor the fueling needs to increase. It's why you can get 100+ hp per liter in a normal vehicle that isn't spinning to 9,000 rpm. Basically under no or low load you should just be driving a 2.0l 4 banger but get on it and hear that vacuum sound from the hood and boom fuel is spraying and forced air is getting pumped in by the turbo. As for direct injection it helps a lot to not waste fuel and helps cool the combustion chamber and allow only a reduced compression of 9.5-1 on a 17 psi stock motor! That's huge compared to the turbo motors of the 80's and 90's!

 

You're going to be wanting to maintain the same air to fuel ratio regardless of the boost level, RPM, power output, etc. If the turbo is shoving more air or resultant fuel into the engine than it can use to make power, it's not tuned properly.

[NickF1011]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_turbo_charged_cars_use_more_fuel

 

and

 

http://www.autoline.tv/daily/

 

Episode 1064

 

The fact that source used the line "the turbos kick in" makes it lose any credibility it might have had.

[mettech]

According to Ford MoCo.

 

 

"...Richard Truett, Powertrain Communications Manager at Ford echoed these sentiments. He said “a lot of it depends on how consumers use it” and “we’re discovering that people really enjoy the turbos.” In other words, buyers like the rush of acceleration they offer.

According to Truett, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 offered in the F-150 can deliver superior fuel economy to the company’s the 5.0-liter V8 engine “if you use the turbos smartly.” He also said you can’t have your cake and eat it too; you have to keep a light foot on the throttle to maximize efficiency.

Lower-than-expected real-world MPG numbers don’t appear to be dissuading buyers from opting for boosted pickups. Truett said as of last month “EcoBoost alone is about 42 percent of F-150 sales,” adding “it’s exceeded all expectations of sales and performance.”

Summing things up, Read offered some advice, “no drive schedule can be perfect to simulate what a customer is going to get, but [EPA scores are] better than ever as an indicator of what a customer is going to get.” As always, you mileage will vary..."

Edited February 5, 2013 by mettech

[NickF1011]

you have to keep a light foot on the throttle to maximize efficiency.

 

That's true of ANY engine!

Edited February 5, 2013 by NickF1011

[Elf911]

You're going to be wanting to maintain the same air to fuel ratio regardless of the boost level, RPM, power output, etc. If the turbo is shoving more air or resultant fuel into the engine than it can use to make power, it's not tuned properly.

 

Yes that what I was saying in regards to turbos under boost using more fuel. As air increases fuel must also to maintain the ratio

[NickF1011]

Yes that what I was saying in regards to turbos under boost using more fuel. As air increases fuel must also to maintain the ratio

 

That same principle holds true on a naturally aspirated engine too though.

[Elf911]

That same principle holds true on a naturally aspirated engine too though.

 

Yes but a naturally aspirated engine can't exceed 1 atmosphere at sea level. That's why there is no "boost" you add a lot more fuel when you start adding a lot more air obviously. Just stating that I love my turbo but yes if you have a heavy foot or a stoplight every other block like here in NYC fuel economy suffers. But set the cruise control in a turbo-4 your doing much better than a 5.0l V8 any day

[NickF1011]

Yes but a naturally aspirated engine can't exceed 1 atmosphere at sea level. That's why there is no "boost" you add a lot more fuel when you start adding a lot more air obviously. Just stating that I love my turbo but yes if you have a heavy foot or a stoplight every other block like here in NYC fuel economy suffers. But set the cruise control in a turbo-4 your doing much better than a 5.0l V8 any day

 

Well yeah, that's why the naturally aspirated engine needs more displacement to move the same amount of air. Your last part also depends on some factors too. It all really comes down to tuning and the application the engines are being used in. There are so few examples out there where a forced induction engine can truly be compared entirely head-to-head with a naturally aspirated one.

 

On a side note: my Cobra is boosted too.

Edited February 5, 2013 by NickF1011