Ecoboost automatic mpg

[69mach1-395]

Just wait for the warmer weather when the winter fuel mix is gone. It'll jump at least 2 mpg.

Sponsored

 

[Kbreese]

I'm on Obies side here. I know I own a C7 my point is invalid but hear me out.

My EPA is 17/29 in V8...today it was 53 degrees outside level highway cruise control set to 70 in 7th gear in V8 mode...I was getting 30 MPG...cruise at 63 miles an hour almost identical conditions 33mpg...in V4 same conditions 38-42mpg..Avg while driving conservatively 22mpg avg while having lots of fun 18mpg.

Too me the Ecoboost mpg and so-so performance is kind of a joke.

460hp 460tq and better gas mileage lol just saying you're better off getting a GT and quit the "fuel saving" arguments.

One of the many great things about Vettes, C5 and up is they have always gotten great gas mileage especially with highway cruising. I would also get 30mpg on my C5 Z06 on the highway and avg between 20-22. In my 2012 5.0 I average between 19-20 mostly conservative but I do get on it a decent amount and the car sees a TON of traffic.

 

[Keyser_Soze]

I'm on Obies side here. I know I own a C7 my point is invalid but hear me out.

My EPA is 17/29 in V8...today it was 53 degrees outside level highway cruise control set to 70 in 7th gear in V8 mode...I was getting 30 MPG...cruise at 63 miles an hour almost identical conditions 33mpg...in V4 same conditions 38-42mpg..Avg while driving conservatively 22mpg avg while having lots of fun 18mpg.

Too me the Ecoboost mpg and so-so performance is kind of a joke.

460hp 460tq and better gas mileage lol just saying you're better off getting a GT and quit the "fuel saving" arguments.

Errrr... EPA hwy is what, 24 GT, 31 EB? So let's say it's an average of 7 mpg different.

150k miles, the GT needs 6250 gallons while the EB needs 4839. Say gas were $3 a gallon (was much higher, now lower, will probably go up) - price difference of $3100+, not to mention the ~$5k premium for the GT. $8000 difference in performance/operating costs seems about right to me, and I'd hardly say the Ecoboost is a 'joke' with these savings. The price levels including fuel seem about right for the fun you get to have.

Now, for the C7... 150k miles, lets give you the benefit of the doubt at 36mpg highway (ha). 4167 gallons, $12500 in fuel, or about $2k less than the Ecoboost. Nice. A stripper 1LT with 5k in options (let's nice it up just a bit) comes to around 55k invoice, vs the EB PP Prem's 28.5k-ish, which is probably nicer inside, but I don't know. Subtract the measly 2k from gas savings and... yeah it's still $24k more expensive. I'd say the step from EB to GT is bigger than the step from GT to non-Z51 C7(YMMV), but the second step costs twice as much as the first.

I hope you aren't arguing the C7's 'value' (there's no arguing the performance), but I can't tell from the above. The C7 easily represents the worst value of the three. I know your history w/ the C7 though and you did get a great deal FOR a C7 purchaser.

 

[Spartan]

Errrr... EPA hwy is what, 24 GT, 31 EB? So let's say it's an average of 7 mpg different.

150k miles, the GT needs 6250 gallons while the EB needs 4839. Say gas were $3 a gallon (was much higher, now lower, will probably go up) - price difference of $3100+, not to mention the ~$5k premium for the GT. $8000 difference in performance/operating costs seems about right to me, and I'd hardly say the Ecoboost is a 'joke' with these savings. The price levels including fuel seem about right for the fun you get to have.

Now, for the C7... 150k miles, lets give you the benefit of the doubt at 36mpg highway (ha). 4167 gallons, $12500 in fuel, or about $2k less than the Ecoboost. Nice. A stripper 1LT with 5k in options (let's nice it up just a bit) comes to around 55k invoice, vs the EB PP Prem's 28.5k-ish, which is probably nicer inside, but I don't know. Subtract the measly 2k from gas savings and... yeah it's still $24k more expensive. I'd say the step from EB to GT is bigger than the step from GT to non-Z51 C7(YMMV), but the second step costs twice as much as the first.

I hope you aren't arguing the C7's 'value' (there's no arguing the performance), but I can't tell from the above. The C7 easily represents the worst value of the three. I know your history w/ the C7 though and you did get a great deal FOR a C7 purchaser.

Difference here is a lot of GT owners run 87 without any issues and only a loss of about 1% HP where the EB cannot perform well at all with 87 and it loses something like 13% HP. So you have to factor in a difference of about .50 cent per gallon of the GT vs EB with 87 vs 93. With that, the GT closes the gap with about 17.5 gallons purchased to the EB 15 gallons for the same $ spent on a fill up.

 

[Keyser_Soze]

Difference here is a lot of GT owners run 87 without any issues and only a loss of about 1% HP where the EB cannot perform well at all with 87. So you have to factor in a difference of about .50 cent per gallon of the GT vs EB with 87 vs 93.

Touche. So, the $3100 difference reduces to a little over $2500.

 

[Kbreese]

Errrr... EPA hwy is what, 24 GT, 31 EB? So let's say it's an average of 7 mpg different.

150k miles, the GT needs 6250 gallons while the EB needs 4839. Say gas were $3 a gallon (was much higher, now lower, will probably go up) - price difference of $3100+, not to mention the ~$5k premium for the GT. $8000 difference in performance/operating costs seems about right to me, and I'd hardly say the Ecoboost is a 'joke' with these savings. The price levels including fuel seem about right for the fun you get to have.

You have to look at the Avg MPG, and from what I am seeing the EB's are not averaging 7 mpg more. I think its more in the 3-5 range. And you pay a premium for the GT because it's a GT with a big rumbling V8 and more potential.

But I agree the EB is definitely not a joke. Personally though I'm iffy on potential issues with those engines, whereas the 5.0 is pretty solid.

 

[tsunami]

My neighbor has a Z06 vette. Last summer, he drove round trip to San Diego from Minnesota. He got 30+mpg on the Interstates. Best was 38 mpg with a light tail wind.
I believe that the vettes have the capability to shut off some of the injectors when not needed.
First thing I asked my Ford dealer was whether or not the GT V-8 could do that. He said no...too much stress on the engine when some of the cylinders are just floating along and then turn on.

 

[Kbreese]

My neighbor has a Z06 vette. Last summer, he drove round trip to San Diego from Minnesota. He got 30+mpg on the Interstates. Best was 38 mpg with a light tail wind.
I believe that the vettes have the capability to shut off some of the injectors when not needed.
First thing I asked my Ford dealer was whether or not the GT V-8 could do that. He said no...too much stress on the engine when some of the cylinders are just floating along and then turn on.

I'm not sure that the Zo6's do that. I know the C5's definitely didn't. Maybe the C6's do but never heard that before. The reason they can get great MPG on the highway is a combo of being light weight, aerodynamic, and taching low in 6th gear.

 

[Spartan]

So what happened to Obie? All his posts are gone. Did he get banned or something?

 

[Tamadrummer88]

So what happened to Obie? All his posts are gone. Did he get banned or something?

Probably deleted his account. From his posts he was really regretting his purchase.

 

[ctlaw]

Axle ratio

At least with automatics, the base EB has a 3.15 axle ratio; 3.31 is standard with EB Premium; 3.55 with PP.

To start with, 3.15 is not a particularly fuel-sipping number. Contrast that with 2.73 from the 2014 Mustang.

Ford does not publish separate numbers for each. I have to assume a PP will do much worse than a base. It may be that the EPA tests do not get fast enough for the difference to show.

The C7 has a 2.41 with the automatic and its 8-speed has a slightly taller top gear ratio.

The 2.41 number would probably be a little too low for a turbo 4, but 2.73 with the EB would have been a better number for a non-performance version. Perhaps that will be in the Lincoln version or in a Thunderbird. Or Ford will compensate by throwing an 8-speed with a really tall 8th gear into the 2017.

I pick up my EB Monday.

 

[Spartan]

They probably wanted the non pp EB to still have some pick up, hence the 3.15s

 

[jholtz]

Normal vs Sport+ driving modes effect on MPG?

Has anyone compared the difference in mileage between normal and sport+ driving modes?

Thanks!

Jim

 

[7jay]

Has anyone compared the difference in mileage between normal and sport+ driving modes?

S+ holds the engine rpm above 1900. In hilly terrain this helps mpg because at 1300 rpm(in normal mode) the engine doesn't have much hp. Mpg seems to be 1/2 mpg more in S+ at average speed of 45 mph.bigger reason is the car just runs easier

 

[ctlaw]

S+ holds the engine rpm above 1900. In hilly terrain this helps mpg because at 1300 rpm(in normal mode) the engine doesn't have much hp. Mpg seems to be 1/2 mpg more in S+ at average speed of 45 mph.bigger reason is the car just runs easier

OTOH, I seemed to get 31+ cruising at 70+ from central MA to New Haven in snow/wet mode with 87 octane. I have not done that well since I was in break-in and drove from Boston to New Haven intentionally drifting the speed between 59 and 64 mph and got nearly 33.

Sponsored