2018 5.0 Highway MPG

[Ebm]

.

How do you do that? Thanks in advance

Hold down the "OK" button on the left side of the steering wheel and turn on the car while still holding it

Sponsored

 

[Intrepid175]

Originally Posted by millhouse View Post
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.

Houston Kid - 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?

Hey millhouse - check out this video:

[ame]

I think Houston Kid has been up front in what he posted. He admitted his results were not anything that could be expected in real world driving with a GT but given the right conditions and a conservative driver, it's amazing the potential the car has. I've referenced this video before and those guys just poo poo'd it too but this guy put over 40 miles on the GT, going both ways, some of it slightly downhill but the return trip going uphill, yet he still netted amazing mpg's out of the V8. Drive it right, and it'll get surprising fuel economy. The only problem is, most, and I mean MOST don't have the discipline to do it! None of us bought our GT's because of fuel economy but I'm looking forward to see what mine nets me when I finally take my first road multi day road trip. If I can get one tank that at least approaches the big 30, I'll be thrilled, but I'm not going to be disappointed if that doesn't happen. I don't have any unrealistic expectations on this.

And BTW, Houston Kid was dead nuts on when he said Houston is flat. I live on the south side between Houston and Galveston and I can confirm, it is nothing but FLAT around here. The only "hills" we have are called overpasses!

 

[Houston Kid]

My other Coyote. 2011 F-150 with 120,694.6miles. 60 mph cruise set. No where near as good as the 18 and a much smaller sample. Maybe 8 miles after reset. Lol.

 

[Loki-GT]

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.

Nice!

 

[millhouse]

Hey millhouse - check out this video:



I think Houston Kid has been up front in what he posted. He admitted his results were not anything that could be expected in real world driving with a GT but given the right conditions and a conservative driver, it's amazing the potential the car has. I've referenced this video before and those guys just poo poo'd it too but this guy put over 40 miles on the GT, going both ways, some of it slightly downhill but the return trip going uphill, yet he still netted amazing mpg's out of the V8. Drive it right, and it'll get surprising fuel economy. The only problem is, most, and I mean MOST don't have the discipline to do it! None of us bought our GT's because of fuel economy but I'm looking forward to see what mine nets me when I finally take my first road multi day road trip. If I can get one tank that at least approaches the big 30, I'll be thrilled, but I'm not going to be disappointed if that doesn't happen. I don't have any unrealistic expectations on this.

And BTW, Houston Kid was dead nuts on when he said Houston is flat. I live on the south side between Houston and Galveston and I can confirm, it is nothing but FLAT around here. The only "hills" we have are called overpasses!

A big difference between 30mpg and 35mpg.

And while he was upfront about his results, those results are not repeatable for any member in here without shenanigans. I can get better fuel economy than that on a downgrade, but whey even post such?

 

[Houston Kid]

Please name the shenanigans so when the video is posted others will know what to look for.

My lifetime MPG btw.

 

[millhouse]

Please name the shenanigans so when the video is posted others will know what to look for.

My lifetime MPG btw.

I already have. Downhill grade, tail wind and a poorly calibrated fuel economy factor.

Had you run in both directions you would at least have compensated for the wind and the grade.

 

[Intrepid175]

I already have. Downhill grade, tail wind and a poorly calibrated fuel economy factor.

Had you run in both directions you would at least have compensated for the wind and the grade.

Well, as we both testified, there are no hills of any consequence in the Houston area. What minor grades there may be are man made and so slight as to be inconsequential. I've lived and driven in this part of the world all my life (62 years now!) and I'm anal about keeping a fuel log on my cars so I think I've got enough experience on the subject to make that statement with some amount of authority. Besides, I can pretty much guarantee you that none of those man made grades last the "19" miles he said he covered in this little experiment.

We have no way of knowing how it computer is calibrated. I know mine is to the optimistic side. As for a tail wind? Maybe he had one, maybe he didn't. He didn't say and probably doesn't know. I know that I'm not usually aware of the wind unless it's really blowing and I drive a convertible.

Either way, he came across to me as being honest about the situation, never said this was the norm and was just posting about an unusual situation for the fun of it. But as usual, there's always someone who's got to hop a soapbox and make a federal case about it.

 

[millhouse]

Either way, he came across to me as being honest about the situation, never said this was the norm and was just posting about an unusual situation for the fun of it. But as usual, there's always someone who's got to hop a soapbox and make a federal case about it.

It wasn't presented as an unusual situation, it was presented as....this is what I get at 60mph on level ground. It was presented as this is what you should be getting on level ground which simply isn't the case.

No-where did I argue that he didn't see an indicated 35mpg, but rather that the 35mpg is not happening at any speed on level ground with the 5.0.

When someone boast outlandish claims, I call bullshit. It's nothing personal, but it's 10mpg over advertised and such an wild outlier of a data point that it should be ignored, not presented.

 

[Houston Kid]

It wasn't presented as an unusual situation, it was presented as....this is what I get at 60mph on level ground. It was presented as this is what you should be getting on level ground which simply isn't the case.

No-where did I argue that he didn't see an indicated 35mpg, but rather that the 35mpg is not happening at any speed on level ground with the 5.0.

When someone boast outlandish claims, I call bullshit. It's nothing personal, but it's 10mpg over advertised and such an wild outlier of a data point that it should be ignored, not presented.

Wrong. It was presented as this is what my car did. Period. 34.7 mpg for 19 miles on flat ground. Go read the post again if that is not clear to you. That’s pretty clear if you read the post. No more no less. You took it as a lie or boasting and decided to call bullshit.

Well I call your bullshit and will raise you a video Monday.

What are you basing your bullshit call on? Have you extensive experience driving an A10 GT or just your all knowing knowledge of modern dual fuel injection engines?

I’ll even film both directions Monday and included the wind info form weather.com.


I’m going to post it even if the car only gets the under 30 mpg you are hoping for. It may but if it does avg 34.7 or better, be ready to eat some crow. If it does not, then it is what it is.

Actually what mpg is going to satisfy your bullshit meter? 26, 30, or does a 32 get me a I told you so. I would like to know what arbitrary avg works for you.

I’m out until Monday night when I will have the opportunity to post the now round trip video. Is fast mode acceptable or do you want it real time for 38 minutes because if my math is right a 38 mile trip at 60 miles an hour comes out to 38 minutes.

 

[hiccup]

Well to compare mpg to the '15 gtPP here's a real world baseline for you '18 owners...short drive(last fall by the way) after k&n filter install and ramair grille mod...
..no tune, other items are just xpipe and pedalmax and there was a few roadway inclines/declines..

 

[WildHorse]

[MENTION=29275]Houston Kid[/MENTION] don't sweat it man.. I for one believe you. On a 200 mile highway trip, cruise set @ 65 mph, I was averaging 31.7 mpg (base 17 GT). Mods in sig.

 

[millhouse]

Wrong. It was presented as this is what my car did. Period. 34.7 mpg for 19 miles on flat ground. Go read the post again if that is not clear to you. That’s pretty clear if you read the post. No more no less. You took it as a lie or boasting and decided to call bullshit.

Re-read your response my friend. The original question was….

I realize that we have a limited number of people currently in the 2018, but I'm curious if the upgraded engine adding DI provides any fuel efficiency benefits.

The 5.0 isn't bought because of it's fuel economy, but I'm curious, what are users out there getting for MPG on conservative road trips? (Highway / 50mph back roads).

Your answer….

18 A10 with 3.15 and 2,3xx miles. 19 mile road trip today. 34.7 mpg with cruise set on 60 mph. Neutral wind and 100% flat.

You were inferring this is what you get regularly. The OP wasn’t asking what people were getting for one time results that have never been accomplished by another car before.

Well I call your bullshit and will raise you a video Monday.

While you’re at it, run it in both directions…..and make sure to get an actual reading of how much fuel you used instead of relying on the (often inaccurate) MPG gauge.

What are you basing your bullshit call on? Have you extensive experience driving an A10 GT or just your all knowing knowledge of modern dual fuel injection engines?

How do you not see how much of an outlier of a data point you have and not question the results yourself is the real question I have. The A10 isn’t going to magically get phenomenally more mpg at steady state when the OD ratios are damn close to being the same as the old A6. The bullshit flag was raised because the results are unbelievable. Again, I’m not doubting what your gauge is telling you….I’m telling you it’s wrong. You can choose to believe it, but don’t get upset when other people think it’s complete shit.

I’ll even film both directions Monday and included the wind info form weather.com.

If you run it in both directions, no need for the wind info.

I’m going to post it even if the car only gets the under 30 mpg you are hoping for. It may but if it does avg 34.7 or better, be ready to eat some crow. If it does not, then it is what it is.

No crow to eat, if the results are repeated it means your MPG calibration is severely off.

Actually what mpg is going to satisfy your bullshit meter? 26, 30, or does a 32 get me a I told you so. I would like to know what arbitrary avg works for you.

Fill up your fuel tank, run it 50 miles one way and back… and then refill. If you’re getting that fuel economy as measured by the actual amount of fuel you’ve put in, I’d believe it.

I’m out until Monday night when I will have the opportunity to post the now round trip video. Is fast mode acceptable or do you want it real time for 38 minutes because if my math is right a 38 mile trip at 60 miles an hour comes out to 38 minutes.

Anything you do at this point is going to be done to satisfy yourself. I personally won’t believe it regardless…and will blame a bad calibration. Think about it, you’re getting 10MPG more than what the EPA rating is. You should question your results when they are that far from the norm.

 

[Houston Kid]

You are now changing everything to fit your agenda. Again making assumptions and now changing the parameters to meet your agenda. Classic attempt to correct you bullshit call.

Making claims I never made. Making assumptions based on our own internal knowledge or lack there of.

Drive 50 miles each direction then fill up and calculate the mileage. That will greatly affect the results because of the stopping mad starting. Not part of my test. Highway speed with it touching the gas or brakes. Clearly stated in my post. If you think anyone read that and thought hey, 34.7 mph doing normal driving, I better go buy me a 5.0 you are as dense as you are making yourself out to be.

I can see it now after the fill up. You overfilled the tank on the initial tank then you under filled it to minimize fuel consumption and skew the average. Well that ain’t happening. I don’t need to fill up for a 38 mile trip.
,
Take what is said for exactly what it is and read several of my posts that I was not claiming this as a normal occurrence only that this is what my car did under the circumstances.

Wind direction will be necessity because you will claim the wind changed from a 20 mph south wind to 45 mph north wind after I made the turn.

You are incapable of admitting you are wrong and the car got 34.7 mpg on that particular day, on that particular route, under the conditions that say.

That’s ok that you can’t, no sleep lost here.

I do have a question of you. You absolutely believe that under the conditions described on that day, the car did not nor cannot avg 34.7 mpg?

If so why? Really, no BS, explain to me scientifically why the car cannot?

My guess your answer is because it just can’t. No way it can.

 

[Houston Kid]

[MENTION=29275]Houston Kid[/MENTION] don't sweat it man.. I for one believe you. On a 200 mile highway trip, cruise set @ 65 mph, I was averaging 31.7 mpg (base 17 GT). Mods in sig.

No worries and thanks. Just some good internet key board cowboy fun.

I know he or she will never give the why for their reasoning with actual facts and will never admit the car did what it did regardless of how many videos I do or how many others chime in.

It’s going to be the car calibration now because to replicate the test you cannot make the trip to the stretch of road and fuel twice without a major impact on the avg.

Sponsored