What are these trucks actually getting for mpg?

[Ruger]

winter is a tough time to check mpg. In summer my gauge says we are averaging 13.3 , in winter is says 9.9

Very astute. Here's one reason why:

What is the Difference between Summer- and Winter-Blend Gasoline? | AAA NewsRoom

 

[Bombsquad68]

For comparison:

On summer gas (winter gas has less energy) I get between 15.5 and 16.5 mpg with my 2011 6.2L SCAB in 2WD. This is absolutely unfailing. It doesn't matter whether the driving is predominantly city or highway. Surprisingly, speed doesn't matter either. What does matter is my right foot. Drive sanely and the big V8 will produce surprisingly good gas mileage.

You guys who waited for a GEN2 because you thought that a V6 with twin blowers would produce markedly better fuel economy forgot something important:
Physics. It takes a certain amount of energy to move a heavy, big body, high profile vehicle down the road. To do the same work requires the expenditure of the same amount of energy. That energy will come from the fuel consumed and from nowhere else. Miracles do not happen between fill-ups. Physics happens.

You're missing a major point in your "physics" breakdown. The difference is that a 6.2L with no cylinder deactivation is running a large amount of intake vacuum while loafing down the highway. It's also one of the main reasons a diesel is that much more efficient than a gas engine (along with energy density and compression ratio).

The 3.5L, along with having less mechanical drag, benefits from having almost half as much displacement and can reduce the amount of pumping losses by nearly half.

The truck is much less aerodynamic than a typical stock pickup so it's very susceptible to winds and temperature changes (air density). You need to compare apples to apples in the same conditions if you want to actually compare the mileage of a G1 vs G2. My truck was getting 15 mpg in our 70 mph -25 C Christmas convoy and the two G1's were getting 12 mpg on the exact same trip. My diesel would have been getting 18-19 mpg.

From the first 2000 miles in my G2, the highway mileage has ranged from a worst of 14 mpg when it was -35 Celsius in a light headwind pushing about 5-6 psi boost, to 18 mpg in a light tailwind at 75 mph running 0-1 psi.

And the other points guys are mentioning about it burning more fuel while playing, that's to be expected, it makes a fair bit more power than the old 6.2L and that requires more fuel along with the fact that FI engines are running a richer fuel mixture under boost.

 

[Ruger]

^^^"The 3.5L...benefits from having almost half as much displacement..."

LOL, that's pretty funny! Here are some corollaries:
- President O benefited from having almost half the IQ as President R.
- Twiggy benefited from having almost half the bust as Raquel Welch.
- The Japanese Zero benefited from having almost half the horsepower as the American P-51 Mustang.

Okay, I admit I'm poking fun and taking (very) modest liberties. However, there are some things in which raw size trumps everything. In this case, the argument is that the GEN2 engine which was shoehorned into the Raptor platform to satisfy EPA fleet mileage requirements is a categorically better installation than the GEN1 engine which was designed specifically for the Raptor platform. Another way to put the argument is that trading mechanical simplicity for mechanical complexity (two blowers) is a step up (even though it violates the Occam's Razor principal). That this is unlikely (though not impossible) should be obvious. The truth? It'll become obvious, too. It always does.

 

[Bombsquad68]

^^^"The 3.5L...benefits from having almost half as much displacement..."

LOL, that's pretty funny! Here are some corollaries:
- President O benefited from having almost half the IQ as President R.
- Twiggy benefited from having almost half the bust as Raquel Welch.
- The Japanese Zero benefited from having almost half the horsepower as the American P-51 Mustang.

Okay, I admit I'm poking fun and taking (very) modest liberties. However, there are some things in which raw size trumps everything. In this case, the argument is that the GEN2 engine which was shoehorned into the Raptor platform to satisfy EPA fleet mileage requirements is a categorically better installation than the GEN1 engine which was designed specifically for the Raptor platform. Another way to put the argument is that trading mechanical simplicity for mechanical complexity (two blowers) is a step up (even though it violates the Occam's Razor principal). That this is unlikely (though not impossible) should be obvious. The truth? It'll become obvious, too. It always does.

The context is clear, not sure why you're "poking fun" here. I'm referring to the benefits in relation to pumping losses which is a major component of the lower efficiency. I have a 7.3L car in the garage next to a 5.5L Twin Turbo, I'm pretty well aware of the positive benefits of more displacement. I'm pointing out that saying "well it's a big truck and fuel = power" is missing a major point why Ford dropped displacement.

And nice job bringing up Occam's Razor, it's actually "principle" not "principal". Did hanging turbos off of diesel engines make them worse as well? Or going to DI over port injection? Nothing in the Ecoboost is even remotely novel at this point, these are decades old and proven concepts (not "assumptions" from Razor's standpoint).

Personally, I'd take an L86 GM 6.2L in my G2 Raptor over either this new HO Ecoboost or the G1 iron boat anchor 6.2L. It combines aluminum construction, cylinder shutdown, DI and the large N/A displacement. But given that the new HO Ecoboost is going to be very easy to mod and offers more power and better efficiency than before, I'm happy with Ford's choice here. If they still had the old engine I wouldn't have bought a G2 Raptor.

 

[Trick.Raptor]

We have seen here at FRF a Gen2 being used like a Raptor is not doing better MPG wise and that was expected. Under load the TTV6 will no be any better MPG wise.

Where you will see a big difference such as @KRod pointed out is around town, going to the mall

15.5MPG around town is a big time improvement over my usual 12MPG around town.

 

[TRIMMELL]

So, what I've gathered is that the 3.5 gets about the same gas mileage as the 6.2L, sounds like shit and is much more complex with a lot more crap that will more than likely fail in a much shorter time frame than the 6.2L. So why did Ford think this was the best option again? Seriously. A supercharged 5.0L from the Range Rover/Jaguar line would have been more than sufficient and not nearly as complicated plus they sound ******* AMAZING. I will say the 17' looks badass and I'm sure some of the new electronics are fun to goof around with but I'm just not impressed with the ecoboost. Yes it has more power but that's it. Maybe a bit better mileage. Maybe. If you're in the boost I'm sure it's getting less than the 6.2L would have. I just wish Ford would have stuck with a V8 and supercharged it if need be. I saw an avalanche grey 17' earlier today and the thing looked sick but the sound ruins it. I truly hope for Fords sake and all of the guys who have shelled out some serious coin for the 17' that this ecoboost lives up to the hype. I personally think I'll ride out the rest of the model year and see what the 18's have to offer before I think about ordering one.

Thanks for the replies guys. I was curious if the ecoboost held up to the fuel economy hype Ford was using to help justify the switch to a V6. It sounds like it hasn't.

 

[Huck]

^^^"The 3.5L...benefits from having almost half as much displacement..."

LOL, that's pretty funny! Here are some corollaries:
- President O benefited from having almost half the IQ as President R.
- Twiggy benefited from having almost half the bust as Raquel Welch.
- The Japanese Zero benefited from having almost half the horsepower as the American P-51 Mustang.

Okay, I admit I'm poking fun and taking (very) modest liberties. However, there are some things in which raw size trumps everything. In this case, the argument is that the GEN2 engine which was shoehorned into the Raptor platform to satisfy EPA fleet mileage requirements is a categorically better installation than the GEN1 engine which was designed specifically for the Raptor platform. Another way to put the argument is that trading mechanical simplicity for mechanical complexity (two blowers) is a step up (even though it violates the Occam's Razor principal). That this is unlikely (though not impossible) should be obvious. The truth? It'll become obvious, too. It always does.

Umm wasn't the 6.2 and old boss block that was pulled off the shelf and put in the raptor when the 5.4 didn't have enough balls to move it adequately?
It wasn't designed for the raptor and had all 80's technology. And yes I put 80k miles on my 2012


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WarSurfer]

Umm wasn't the 6.2 and old boss block that was pulled off the shelf and put in the raptor when the 5.4 didn't have enough balls to move it adequately?
It wasn't designed for the raptor and had all 80's technology. And yes I put 80k miles on my 2012


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this sarcasm?

The 6.2 was designed for the Raptor and SD, all new. The 5.4 only came into the picture because the tuning for the 6.2 wasn't ready in time.

Mike Harrison:

The new 6.2L is all new. It shares nothing with any of the other V8 or V6 engines in the Ford Powertrain line up. The bore centers are 115mm, compared with the Modular 100mm bore centers. This allows us to have a relatively large 102mm bore, and make decent power from a 2 valve per cylinder engine.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/927237-ask-the-engineer-for-the-new-6-2l-gas-engine.html

ophelia.sdsu.edu:8080/ford/03-03-2012/news-center/press-releases-detail/pr-mike-harrison2658-team-leader-of-31057.html

I'm on pain meds... it's probably sarcasm.

 

[Mr Roarke]

Are any of you guys that are getting lower mpgs (and not flogging the hell out of it) running ethanol?

 

[Wilson]

Use e-30 it rocks