I have a 2011 F150 and have now 8000 miles. I have a question as to the temperature having a bearing on MPG. The reason for the question is that I just made a trip to Florida (round trip just over 1500 miles) I was using Shell 87 oct. I was headed north I- 75. the outside temp. was 80, I was getting 21 mpg @ 75mph using cruise, the further north I came the lower the temp. the MPG stayed the same until the temp. started to drop. then the MPG started to drop at around 60 degrees, went down to 19mpg as temp droped to around 50. Driving conditions were not changed ( no head or tail wind or speed changed, no Ac on or off changed). Just wondered if anyone has noticed any thing of this nature. I get quite a bit better MPG using Shell 87 oct than other brands especially Murphy(walmart.)
Fuel Mileage Eco boost F150
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
414 Posts
Temperature definately affects mileage! Oils and greases that lubricate wheel bearings, u joints and axles will cause more parasitic drag which eats more fuel. Also, the further north you got the more mountainous the terrain and even with coasting downhill, the uphill sections will use more as well.
I bought mine end of September so haven't had a lot of post break in warm weather miles BUT... I have noticed a drop in daily average when the weather is coldest. Went from 15-16 to 14-15. I attribute that to more idling for morning warm up along with cold lubricants!
I bought mine end of September so haven't had a lot of post break in warm weather miles BUT... I have noticed a drop in daily average when the weather is coldest. Went from 15-16 to 14-15. I attribute that to more idling for morning warm up along with cold lubricants!
Thank's for the reply. I have noticed also that when temperature is below 30, on short trips the mpg sucks. I haven't experminted with higer octane fuels but the owners manual does say that it may be benifical to use higher octane fuels in hot weather conditions. seems that it would be better in cold weather since it burns hotter.
Joined
·
414 Posts
Premium burns slower, not hotter. Won't do anything for you except lighten your wallet. Engine has a richer tune until it warms completely. That's why your short trip mileage is lower. You can see that in the mileage by minute bar graph in the fuel economy window.
Joined
·
5 Posts
+1 premium fuel will not help.Around here regular grade 87 octane is the same know matter who you buy it from.
Joined
·
589 Posts
Colder temps will always affect your MPGs. Here is reached pass -60f in the winter and I loss about 3-4mpg (even when the truck has warmed up which takes longer and more miles down the road). The cold affects all the lub, oils, and even your tires.
Also most fuel companies will mix more additives to help the fuel from be affected by the cold (Doesn't help the quality of the fuel or your engine ability to effectively burn it up). Cheap fuel will often equal cheap quality from what I have seen.
Also most fuel companies will mix more additives to help the fuel from be affected by the cold (Doesn't help the quality of the fuel or your engine ability to effectively burn it up). Cheap fuel will often equal cheap quality from what I have seen.
Attachments
Joined
·
414 Posts
I don't know if I would put anything in the fuel in these trucks. As for Xtreme, I did a little reasearch and (YIKES) found this: Does Xtreme Fuel Treatment really work to increase MPG in cars
Now, the information in the link is one man's opinion but I've done testing on some stuff like this and have never found mpg or time on the track with anything but good synthetic oil and common sense driving technique.
Now, the information in the link is one man's opinion but I've done testing on some stuff like this and have never found mpg or time on the track with anything but good synthetic oil and common sense driving technique.
I would encourage anyone to take the 6 tank challenge. https://www.syntekoffice.com/new/syntek/Shop?ID=1B1DE&url=darrin&homepage=187&market=7&country=USA&template=40&language=1&menu=product
Full disclosure, I am a distributor. I have seen an improvement in both of my vehicle, and have seen the benefits in others vehicles as well. There is a 30 day money-back guarantee, so there is no downside and plenty of upside.
There really is NO other product like this on the market anywhere. We have a mining company that uses over 12,000,000 gallons of fuel per month that has a happy customer for 15 years+.
Full disclosure, I am a distributor. I have seen an improvement in both of my vehicle, and have seen the benefits in others vehicles as well. There is a 30 day money-back guarantee, so there is no downside and plenty of upside.
There really is NO other product like this on the market anywhere. We have a mining company that uses over 12,000,000 gallons of fuel per month that has a happy customer for 15 years+.
Attachments
Joined
·
414 Posts
At average 500 mile range per tank I couldn't go 3000 miles in 30 days to take advantage of the challenge. What is the mix ratio of XFT? How long on average does the product take to start working? (Miles vs. Run Hours?)
If something works I'm all for it. I see a six tank bottle is $36 at the link, if I were to try it I would calculate effective cost/mile to determine cost/benefit ratio.
With the ever changing cold weather, now is not the time for realistic testing. Depending on the answers to above I might be willing come late spring, early summer when the tolerances of non-controllables are closer.
Again, keep in mind I've tested several products against claims and have found no gain. Some of these include Slick 50, Z-Max, Royal Purple, and a jug of a fuel conditioner I can't remember the name of with out a hint of additional fuel mileage in the street vehicles or a reduction in Elapsed Time with my Cuda on the track against the clocks. So, yes, I am quite sceptical. However, progress is progress and if there's a cost/mile benefit, I'll give it a shot. If it works, I'm friends for life!
Update: Just did some on line research and came up with some answers.
At .25 oz/20 gallons, a six tank test would equate to 120 gallons used. At an average cost/gallon of $3.25, realizing 15.0 mpg, the cost of fuel per mile is 21.6 cents. (Total fuel cost $325 divided by 1800 miles) The break even point after adding $36 for XFT (if the 6 tank test bottle is a 1.5 oz bottle) would require 16.383 mpg on the same number of fuel gallons. This equates to 16.383 mpg or a 9.2% increase in mpg. Is this doable? Perhaps.
Now the faster burn benefit has me curious. Higher octane fuel burns slower to prevent detonation in high cylinder pressure conditions such as our engines provide during high load/high boost pressure conditions. If the ignition temperature is lower, could that not cause detonation resulting at best in PCM generated spark retard and subsequent equalization of power output? I do know that if the burn is controllable, yet faster, and able to provide max burn rate before the 15 degree ATDC sweet spot for maximum rod/crank leverage moment, then more effective power will be produced. That is the theory behind E3 spark plug technology. Its not a faster burn, necessarily, but a more effecting light resulting in efficiently completing the burn sooner that results in a higher horsepower output.
Higher horsepower output will result in less necessary throttle input which results in less fuel usage for similar energy production. This would show in the mile per hour level at the finish line on the drag strip timers and the fuel economy results on the street.
Interesting food for thought. What is XFT compatability and effectiveness with E85?
If something works I'm all for it. I see a six tank bottle is $36 at the link, if I were to try it I would calculate effective cost/mile to determine cost/benefit ratio.
With the ever changing cold weather, now is not the time for realistic testing. Depending on the answers to above I might be willing come late spring, early summer when the tolerances of non-controllables are closer.
Again, keep in mind I've tested several products against claims and have found no gain. Some of these include Slick 50, Z-Max, Royal Purple, and a jug of a fuel conditioner I can't remember the name of with out a hint of additional fuel mileage in the street vehicles or a reduction in Elapsed Time with my Cuda on the track against the clocks. So, yes, I am quite sceptical. However, progress is progress and if there's a cost/mile benefit, I'll give it a shot. If it works, I'm friends for life!
Update: Just did some on line research and came up with some answers.
At .25 oz/20 gallons, a six tank test would equate to 120 gallons used. At an average cost/gallon of $3.25, realizing 15.0 mpg, the cost of fuel per mile is 21.6 cents. (Total fuel cost $325 divided by 1800 miles) The break even point after adding $36 for XFT (if the 6 tank test bottle is a 1.5 oz bottle) would require 16.383 mpg on the same number of fuel gallons. This equates to 16.383 mpg or a 9.2% increase in mpg. Is this doable? Perhaps.
Now the faster burn benefit has me curious. Higher octane fuel burns slower to prevent detonation in high cylinder pressure conditions such as our engines provide during high load/high boost pressure conditions. If the ignition temperature is lower, could that not cause detonation resulting at best in PCM generated spark retard and subsequent equalization of power output? I do know that if the burn is controllable, yet faster, and able to provide max burn rate before the 15 degree ATDC sweet spot for maximum rod/crank leverage moment, then more effective power will be produced. That is the theory behind E3 spark plug technology. Its not a faster burn, necessarily, but a more effecting light resulting in efficiently completing the burn sooner that results in a higher horsepower output.
Higher horsepower output will result in less necessary throttle input which results in less fuel usage for similar energy production. This would show in the mile per hour level at the finish line on the drag strip timers and the fuel economy results on the street.
Interesting food for thought. What is XFT compatability and effectiveness with E85?
Attachments
I'll put 10 grand on the hood of your truck if you want to put a bet on that test.
I have to aise the B.S flag on anything that claims a 4-5 gpm increase by adding an ounce and a half of anything to the tank. I've been in this refinery making gasoline for 33 years and have never seen anything that will make that sort of magic come through our engineering department.
Before anyone says that "Big Oil" wants to keep fuel mileage down for the sake of profit, bear in mind we sell every drop of gasoline we make no matter what the cost of a gallon so it makes sense that if the big refiners could claim that kind of mileage increase, the customers would be beating the doors down to get at it.
On the OP's post and one or two of the octane concerns, winter isn't a freind of high octane fuels as they burn cooler by design to lower combustion temperatures and unless you are putting the engine under a lot of stress such as pulling heavy loads, it will serve you better to go with lower octane rated fuels in cold weather. Racing will do this as well but I don't figure too many folks waste money on an F-150 for racing so that point is moot.
We run anti knock engines almost around the clock in search of better mixtures for different driving conditions. One of the few things that actually stuck in my brain from talking to the knock engine dudes was that flame travel is the same across the top of a piston no matter what the octane rating is. The problem with detonation comes from the increased combustion temps from high loads no matter what the cause (ignition advance, octane ratings, compression ratios, etc) When the temperatures rise high enough, the pressure from the piston compressing stuff sets off the ignition of the fuel too soon so you get the diesaling effect of preignition we all love. Lower the combustion temperature with higher octane rated fuel and hopefully the fuel won't ignite till the spark plug says so.
Lowering the air charge like a nice cold day will and high octane fuel sux.
That said, I have to run 102 octane fuel in my turbocharged RZR almost year round mostly because on that one, I DO keep the throttle pinned most of the time.
Before anyone says that "Big Oil" wants to keep fuel mileage down for the sake of profit, bear in mind we sell every drop of gasoline we make no matter what the cost of a gallon so it makes sense that if the big refiners could claim that kind of mileage increase, the customers would be beating the doors down to get at it.
On the OP's post and one or two of the octane concerns, winter isn't a freind of high octane fuels as they burn cooler by design to lower combustion temperatures and unless you are putting the engine under a lot of stress such as pulling heavy loads, it will serve you better to go with lower octane rated fuels in cold weather. Racing will do this as well but I don't figure too many folks waste money on an F-150 for racing so that point is moot.
We run anti knock engines almost around the clock in search of better mixtures for different driving conditions. One of the few things that actually stuck in my brain from talking to the knock engine dudes was that flame travel is the same across the top of a piston no matter what the octane rating is. The problem with detonation comes from the increased combustion temps from high loads no matter what the cause (ignition advance, octane ratings, compression ratios, etc) When the temperatures rise high enough, the pressure from the piston compressing stuff sets off the ignition of the fuel too soon so you get the diesaling effect of preignition we all love. Lower the combustion temperature with higher octane rated fuel and hopefully the fuel won't ignite till the spark plug says so.
Lowering the air charge like a nice cold day will and high octane fuel sux.
That said, I have to run 102 octane fuel in my turbocharged RZR almost year round mostly because on that one, I DO keep the throttle pinned most of the time.
Joined
·
7 Posts
Does any one have an opinion to share, I have a choice which rear axle ratio to get. The 3:31 or the 3:55. which is better for a super crew, 4x4, 145", Eco Boost, non towing, non heavy loaded driver, in flat country?
Joined
·
589 Posts
If you are not towing and most of your time is on highways the 3:31 is a good choice. 3:55 tend ot be the better deal when doing a mix of city and highway driving (Also from what I read has the best balance between daily driving and towing).
I would think the reason this stuff works is that it lightens the wallet and therefore causes fuel mileage to increase due to less weight to move around. Just my 2 cents, remember your mileage may vary.
I have a 2013 with 3.5 rear axle. Window sticker says 21 on hwy. I have yet to get better than 17. 75mph in cruise. Regularly travel this route which has one 3500' mountain pass, and that pass has a downhill side too..... Usually get 16.7 on the 360 mile round trip. Truck has 8500 miles on it. Really disappointed in Ford. Gave up a '04 Chevy Duramax that got 24 mpg for this? Ready to take it to the dealer but they will just hook it to their computer and tell me everything is normal......
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!