2018 5.0 Highway MPG

Houston Kid said:

That would start with Ford. I reset the mpg once I set the cruise. Did not touch the gas or brakes for 19 miles. 34.7. I will gladly film the entire 19 mile one way trip at 60 mph if you wish. I’m simply reporting what the computer was showing.

That was a purely highway number in D. No stop start etc. As I said above, no touching the gas or brake for 19 miles on cruise at 60 mph and reset the mpg after cruise was set.

I never drive like that btw but I was bored and going to be super early from an appointment so I had nothing better to do.

My lifetime on the car is around 17 mph. I will check this weekend when I get back in the car.

Click to expand...

Either your computer is wrong, or you were going downhill the whole way with a tailwind (or both). What you’ve done is taken a single sample and made a conclusion based off it. For heavens sake, at least run it in both directions to compensate for wind and elevation changes. Contrary to what you believe, there is always wind and the ground is never flat and level.

I’m sorry, these cars aren’t capable of 34.7mpg on flat and level ground at 60 MPH or you bet your ass Ford would be advertising as such.

Houston Kid said:

I agree but the question was hwy mpg so my sample is as much pure hwy mpg you can get. Not at all a realistic reflection of normal daily driving or even a road trip. Just what the car can do cruising on the hwy which was the ops question.

The average on that tank prior to the reset was 12.9 over 85 miles since fill up.

Click to expand...

I can get 40mpg at times with cruise control on. Hell, the fuel shuts off completely down some of the hills in the mountains. Your mustang was only capable of going 34.7 mpg due to the elevation and conditions. At stead state on a level surface it’s just not happening.

The only true way to verify mpg is when you fill up, the trip computer is nice but I don't use that to figure actual mpg. I divide the amount of miles traveled by how many gallons it took to fill up.

My trip computer told me my last fill up I averaged 27 mpg, the actual mpg came out to 24.28.

millhouse said:

Either your computer is wrong, or you were going downhill the whole way with a tailwind (or both). What you’ve done is taken a single sample and made a conclusion based off it. For heavens sake, at least run it in both directions to compensate for wind and elevation changes. Contrary to what you believe, there is always wind and the ground is never flat and level.

I’m sorry, these cars aren’t capable of 34.7mpg on flat and level ground at 60 MPH or you bet your ass Ford would be advertising as such.



I can get 40mpg at times with cruise control on. Hell, the fuel shuts off completely down some of the hills in the mountains. Your mustang was only capable of going 34.7 mpg due to the elevation and conditions. At stead state on a level surface it’s just not happening.

Click to expand...

You have not been to Houston TX have you? There is no downhill. Houston is flat and just about at sea lever. Maybe 60 feet above sea level. The next time I make the trip I will film the entire 19 mile journey just to show you how "off" the calibration is due to tail wind or down hill. Neither of which impacted the drive.

I don't care one way or the to other what the car can and cannot do, but a liar I am not. I am reporting 100% what the car did for 19 miles according to the car computer.

Like it or don't. Believe it or not. I don't care but don't call me a liar.

I've got no skin in any game to boast about a inflated MGP. I bought my GT to haul ass not sip gas.

I see you have a 16 and not an 18 with the A10 so maybe you are a bit lacking in your experience with the A10?

opcorn:

Houston Kid said:

You have not been to Houston TX have you? There is no downhill. Houston is flat and just about at sea lever. Maybe 60 feet above sea level. The next time I make the trip I will film the entire 19 mile journey just to show you how "off" the calibration is due to tail wind or down hill. Neither of which impacted the drive.

I don't care one way or the to other what the car can and cannot do, but a liar I am not. I am reporting 100% what the car did for 19 miles according to the car computer.

Like it or don't. Believe it or not. I don't care but don't call me a liar.

I've got no skin in any game to boast about a inflated MGP. I bought my GT to haul ass not sip gas.

I see you have a 16 and not an 18 with the A10 so maybe you are a bit lacking in your experience with the A10?

Click to expand...

Flatter than Illinois?!?! :eyebulge:

All I know is I'm impressed they can get the mpg they get considering my 1985 2,800 lb 5.0 LX Coupe got 15 on its best day and averaged about 13 and had 215 hp, we are spoiled!!

Made a 210 mile round trip from Manassas to Richmond (1-95) Virginia and averaged 25mpg calculated by hand. Trip computer showed 26.2 mpg which I knew was a bit optimistic. I did two pulls from 60mph to 130ish mph and the rest of the time I was between 60-80 mph.

The car has 3.55 rear with A10, 20inch rims+ Premium gas (93 octane). It was raining on the way to Richmond and cleared up on the way back. Dont know if that would make any difference but I figured the more info the better.

Houston is pretty damn flat. LOL. No mountains or hills around here.

millhouse said:

I’m sorry, these cars aren’t capable of 34.7mpg on flat and level ground at 60 MPH or you bet your ass Ford would be advertising as such.

Click to expand...

My EB's MPG guage peggs at 40 MPG when doing 65 MPH with light throttle on a flat highway (I was testing, as I usually cruse at 75-80 MPH), so I don't see why 5.0's can't hit ~35 MPG during same ideal conditions. I don't think that Ford can advertise as such as that's not EPA rated milage.

Doesn't anybody do an actual calculation of their mileage or is it too hard like writing a check? :doh:

Houston Kid said:

You have not been to Houston TX have you? There is no downhill. Houston is flat and just about at sea lever. Maybe 60 feet above sea level. The next time I make the trip I will film the entire 19 mile journey just to show you how "off" the calibration is due to tail wind or down hill. Neither of which impacted the drive.

I don't care one way or the to other what the car can and cannot do, but a liar I am not. I am reporting 100% what the car did for 19 miles according to the car computer.

Like it or don't. Believe it or not. I don't care but don't call me a liar.

I've got no skin in any game to boast about a inflated MGP. I bought my GT to haul ass not sip gas.

I see you have a 16 and not an 18 with the A10 so maybe you are a bit lacking in your experience with the A10?

Click to expand...

You are misleading. You are taking a single data point on a short distance excursion and making a bad assumption....and then presenting it as truth. The only conclusion that could be made from your findings is that on that single stretch of road in only that direction your display shows 35mpg.

It in no way means that value is attainable for others on a flat section of road at 65mph. Just because the road "feels" like it's flat does not mean it is. Even a small grade can make a huge impact on fuel economy. That's why such small distances are meaningless when measuring economy.

millhouse said:

You are misleading. You are taking a single data point on a short distance excursion and making a bad assumption....and then presenting it as truth. The only conclusion that could be made from your findings is that on that single stretch of road in only that direction your display shows 35mpg.

It in no way means that value is attainable for others on a flat section of road at 65mph. Just because the road "feels" like it's flat does not mean it is. Even a small grade can make a huge impact on fuel economy. That's why such small distances are meaningless when measuring economy.

Click to expand...

You prove my point to a point. I never stated anything other than on this particular 19 mile trip the MPG avg was 34.7 according to the car. Zero other assumptions or conclusions made on my part.


I drove from Houston north to The Woodlands which is an overall elevation increase. So an up hill drive.

Downtown Houston sits at 50 feet which is where I live. 3 miles from downtown and according to the topo maps same elevation at my house. The Woodlands sits at 160 feet. Zero traffic on the Hardy Toll Road. So an overall elevation gain of 110 feet so definitely not down hill.

So I was wrong, not a flat ass drive. An overall elevation gain. The wind was considered calm also so not a factor. Not like there was a 20mph south wind that day.

Take what I posted for what it is and nothing more nothing less. Simple facts. 19 mile drive on a relatively flat route with no touching of the gas or brake cruise set at 60 mph the car has the ability to do X.

When I do the same drive Monday and film it, the results maybe vastly different. The video will tell the tell.

I’m going to give a +/- 3.5 mph difference for Monday’s drive. I highly doubt I will get a plus but who knows? Humidity, temp, and wind is why I am given a +/- guess and that is a totally random number but that’s what you get in this very unscientific expierment.

I am sure 34.7 is possible. Try it some time set MPG after you are at speed and drive. I did this on a Mercury Mountaineer for 20 miles at 60 mph and got 29+.
Lee

Loki-GT said:

Doesn't anybody do an actual calculation of their mileage or is it too hard like writing a check? :doh:

Click to expand...

You can also go into the engineering mode and edit the bias. I ended up at 950 after hand calcuations and it is dead on most times. Every once in a while, the computer is .1 low.

sloppymax said:

You can also go into the engineering mode and edit the bias. I ended up at 950 after hand calcuations and it is dead on most times. Every once in a while, the computer is .1 low.

Click to expand...

How do you do that? Thanks in advance

Not my video. Just the first one on a search.

[ame="[MEDIA=youtube]wi_XD6SV3JU[/MEDIA]"]