Driving for ford/chevy dealership.

[herektir]

Recent contract work delivering cars in the texas and oklahoma area for a dealership has let me drive a number of things i wouldnt normally. Just for info my vehicle is a 1998 nissan frontier pickup manual transmission rated 20/24 and i get 27 to 32 mpg depending on winds and traffic.

For the cars i have driven.
2015 -2016 models, unless stated all cars are automatics unfortunately
Ford escape 37 mpg highway till i hit houston traffic, dropped to 35.5( other driver got 24 mpg previous trip)
Ford fusion 40.9 mpg on a 328 mile trip 90% highway.
Ford focus 2.0l 44.1 mpg 200 mile trip.
Ford focus ecoboost 52.5 highway(49.1 combined.) 328 mile trip
Ford explorer (police intercepter to a dept.) 20.5 mpg
Ford f150 23.5 mpg mix.
Ford f250 gas worktruck 14.1 with strong headwind( its a guzzler.....)
ford f350 gas chassis cab flatbed 13.7 with a tailwind....
Chevy camaro ss 26.7mpg with headwind
Chevy silverado 1500 22.5 mpg.
chevy corvette have to be honest, i didnt try, had some funwith the gas.
chevy suburban 22.5 mpg

Late model
mazda speed3 manual 32 mpg combined( fun car)
gmc 4x4 1500 pickup jacked up big tires... 14.7 mpg monstrosity
bmw 320i couldnt find mpg meter, cruised in eco mode at around 45 to 50mpg so figure maybe 40 to 45 mpg actual mix.
dodge charger rt, i didnt try, had some fun with the gas
hummer H2, 10 gallons to travel 78 miles used it all and then some.
jeep cherokee 21.5 mpg


Winner so far ford focus eco boost. If i could get a manual transmission mid 50 mpg shouldnt be a problem. Any owners out there with one with actual results?

[Xist]

Dad bought a 2013 Focus SFE, but the nearest one was on the far side of the state. Based on the mileage on the odometer (of the brand-new car), when they left, and when they arrived, they averaged about 80 MPH.

Is that how you drive?

[herektir]

Only 80 mph when driving the older fullsize pickups to auction as trying to hypermile with them really doesnt help alot, though i do draft when possible.

The eco cars try to stay roughly with the slower traffic flow, 65 to 70 on the highways.

I am not used to pulse and glide that much as my pickup just doesnt do it well at over 45 miles per hour(.54 or something drag coefficient). Rural roads, small towns etc where i havent had a chance to drive the focus id like to think i could get near 55mpg. My pickup combined mileage is epa 22, typical non highway driving i get 29 to 30 mpg for the tank 34% over epa.

Mind you these are all unmodded cars including my truck. I use the bed to much to try to fashion an aerocap for it.

[herektir]

Just an fyi on the ford f150 engines for 2016 2.7 v6 ecoboost, 3.5? v6 ecoboost, and v8. v8 23.5 mpg best i could get, 3.5ltr 26.4 mpg best with some traffic problems, and winner 2.7 ltr ecoboost 30.1 mpg mixed driving with 32.4 highway.

Also, more practice with a 2016 ford focus sedan that is used as a chase vehicle saw an trip average of 52.3mpg for 187 miles with BAD construction traffic in fort worth on i35, and an open highway personal best 62.6 mpg today.

[gregsfc]

Are you going my the vehicle's calculations? I've got the smallest, lightest, highest-geared F150 with only a few options; drive like a granny rarely exceeding 2000 RPM and 65 mph and can achieve only 24 with 85% highway (slow highway from 45-59 mph) commuting in a rural area, babying the truck, and usually cannot achieve more than 25.5 in near highway-only trips and that's at 65 mph. I'm not complaining even though it falls short of the EPA estimate, because most reviews put this truck, with this engine, in any configuration, at no more than 18 mpg.

I went for the lightest and highest-geared F150 with the 2.7L EB in a 2015 model; hoping for decent mpg, as many reviews claim both F150 EB's are way overrated with regards to mpg, but I wanted only a smaller truck, but didn't like the value or options for any compact and am addicted to mid-range power from previously owning a diesel car and so pulled the trigger on a minimalist full-size with the torquey 2.7L EB. At the risk of turning this into a Ford commercial, it should be noted that Ford offers their most advanced-technology engine for only an $800 premium and offers it for every trim level and every configuration up to a certain point of luxury where then one must opt for the larger EB engine. This is in contrast to the other two big players who offer their most advanced engines only in the higher trims, and the player who offers a diesel (I'm a huge diesel fan, but not a fan of the current prices and exhaust-treatment reliability woes of modern diesels) offers it starting at around $38.5K in a truck that starts at or about $26.5K. I got my truck for around $28K and it does have some options like power glass and mirrors and cruise.

For 2015, Ford/EPA estimates were 19/26/22 for 2-wd; and 18/24/20 for 4-wd, but for 2016, Ford added an extra estimate for heavy payload package, and so now, instead of just two ratings, there is about four. For my particular truck, which is standard duty, and 2wd, the rating did not change. It's still 19/26/22. Amazingly, for me, I think I could actually beat the city rating, but can't say that the highway estimate is accurate, as I don't even quite drive the speed limit.

I'm averaging 24.2 mpg life time so far with 13K miles, but, for me and my vehicle, there are a couple of errors to account for. First of all, the fuel-consumed data that the vehicle calculates is way, way off, but not consistent. On average my calculator will underestimate the fuel burned by at least 8%. That's a huge error, and so anyone who claims mpg in an F150 w/o hand calculating will likely be reporting a huge over estimation, as it's not likely that it's just with my truck. The second error goes the other direction but is much smaller, which is good and may just be for my particular tires, which are Michelin LTX 17". I calculated my trip meter/odometer on several occasions with two different GPSs and get a consistent 1.8% pessimistic calculation, meaning I'm actually driving farther from tank-to-tank than the vehicle indicates, but when I report to Fuelly, I calculate a 1.5% underrepresentation just to be conservative.

Also, it should be noted that I measure only from tank to tank, but I've had some 250 mile round trip, and on an average day, at a slow 65 mph, my truck can come in just under the 26 rating, at or about 25.5 accounting for the two errors noted above. It should also be noted that my driving style and my commute are very ideal with respect to fuel economy. As a point of reference, I can achieve 78 mpg on average on my 700 cc motorcycle that has a Fuelly average at or about 67, and I can average 32 mpg in a Saturn Aura that also has a much lower Fuelly average.

I have seen my vehicle's computer show me achieving 30 mpg for short jaunts or on the highway with a tailwind or headed down towards a river basin from the Highland Rim, but it always comes back down on the return trip, but I did measure one very good trip wherein I achieved around 26.8 during a 230 mile, round trip jaunt. In that case, what probably happened was that I had a normal tailwind going and then the wind died down before heading back. That's the only explanation I can think of, as I always set the cruise at the same speed, have driven that exact route several times, usually get very consistent results in warm weather at or about 25.5, and have not replicated that same result, before or after.

[herektir]

I use engine breaking for shorter coast downs to lights, and for long coasts i put it in nuetral even with an auto transmission. Its oppurtunities to coast that really boosts mileage. For one 2 mile stretch of road with moderate traffic load, a shallow down hill, and the reducing speed limit into town i had the f150 in nuetral for the entire 2 miles. 99mpg+. Final speed limit was 35 mph up to a red light which i tapped on the brakes from just under 30mph.

Doing similar(coasting) in my own 4 cylinder manual transmission truck with a scanguage, 70mph is 300mpg, 60mph is 240mpg, 50mph is 200mpg, 40mph is 160mpg. The scangauge has been tuned to my truck for 1 to 2 % accuracy tank to tank.

Find the chances to coast and use them. This being said, i dont turn the engine off like some more extreme hypermilers. Pulse and glide doesnt work at highway speeds for pickups well either, or i would do that(poor drag coefficient).

I just reread your post about you using cruise, i dont. My foot gives better mpg than any cruise control I've tried. The cruise will want to shift going uphill to maintain speed, with my foot i let myself slow down to keep it in overdrive.

Even 8% off on 30 mpg puts it over 27mpg. I cant do hand calculation of mpg because i get the use of the vehicle for the trip only, be it 50 miles or 300. The other drivers mpg on the read out averages about 16 for the v8, and 18 to 20 for the v6 ecoboosts that i have gotten into. They cant keep thier foot off the gas.

[gregsfc]

Originally Posted by herektir

Even 8% off on 30 mpg puts it over 27mpg. I cant do hand calculation of mpg because i get the use of the vehicle for the trip only, be it 50 miles or 300. The other drivers mpg on the read out averages about 16 for the v8, and 18 to 20 for the v6 ecoboosts that i have gotten into. They cant keep thier foot off the gas.

I can't live w/o cruise. I mean I can, I just won't. I'm no hypermiler, but what I do is try to do reasonable driving behaviors that I know I can manage day after day with no problem and it has to be behaviors that are considerate to other drivers.

Cruise control in this truck is by far the best I've ever used (and I mean this from a control aspect; not fuel economy). It is just a standard cruise (not adaptive). The reason it's so good is two fold: Number one, it's the first vehicle with cruise I've owned that will actually downshift on down hill grades; not just uphill to maintain set speed, but also, it doesn't over do it trying to keep it within one or two mph like most designs; but instead tries to keep it within about 3-4 mph and this greatly reduces the shifting up and down like one gets with many cruise controls and automatic transmissions. So when I'm traveling down a 6% grade with a slight tailwind with the cruise set on 59, it will downshift when I hit somewhere around 62-63, again, and then once again, if the hill is long enough, and by the time I get near the bottom of the grade, it'll be down to 3rd gear. If I prefer not to get down to 3rd, I'll manually shift down using the gear lockout function to 4th as soon as I first start the down grade, thereby starting the braking function a little sooner. Using this active method, it'll not need to shift down to third unless the down grade is for a really long stretch. The active method, however, requires that I remember to lock back in the higher gears as I near the base of the grade. The power train is so smooth and quiet, that there is no noise or vibration to remind me that I'm turning 3000 RPM instead of 1500, and if I'm not looking at the tach., I won't notice it.

The second thing that makes cruise so good in the new F150 has to do with the EB engine. Since it's got over 90% of it's 375 peak pound-foot torque at only 1900 RPM, it will really pull a hill in 6th gear, even with a 3.31 rear axle, and so it trudges along on hilly highways and roads in 6th where most automatics with cruise will do that downshifting-racing-up-the-hill phenomenon that we've all experienced who drive automatics with cruise. On this same 6% grade, going up the hill, with a slight headwind, it'll downshift to 5th only about 50% of the time. The other 50%, it'll go right up the hill, with an empty bed, in 6th gear. This is almost certainly based on how windy it is outside. Since I believe in maintaining steady speeds in consideration of other drivers, this is exactly what I want my vehicle to do. It's almost like having my preferred manual transmission when it comes to cruise control operation in this truck.

I figured that you had to use the vehicle trip info as your only real option, and my feedback about the inaccuracy of the trip meter was more oriented to others reading that were maybe comparing different brands and wanting "real mpg" as close as possible. I think that an error of magnitude with respect to "gallons used" that this truck calculates is worth noting. As you stated, it could be as much as 3 mpg difference and that is significant. From my experience, on my own personal truck, getting rid of both errors, one in each direction, will normally result in around a 1.5 mpg reduction hand calculated versus the trip meter; but the "gallons used" error is so inconsistent, that 1.5 is just an average; and that's why I can't really use it and feel like I'm reporting honest, accurate-as-possible information using the trip meter. In contrast, my wife's Saturn will report a pretty consistent .5 mpg optimistic reading. So I'll use it for reporting, but not in the truck.

It is also possible that a crew cab or another configuration that makes for a longer truck than mine could possible exceed my highway mpg theoretically, since a longer vehicle could achieve lower drag in spite of extra weight or lower gearing that could be engineered in another configuration versus my regular cab, 2wd, short bed with the highest available gearing @ 3.31 rear axle ratio and a curb weight of only 4168.

[herektir]

You got used to having a cruise control, i get that. I tend to not use cruise except to give my leg a break for 10 minutes to move it around on long +200 mile trips.

To get close to or over the epa numbers you pretty much have to granny drive and/or hypermile, there is just no way around that in a truck.

I try not to granny drive, ie 55 on 70mph speed limit highway. I go about 65 behind a semi so im not an additional traffic slowdown for the faster movers plus i get the drafting from being 2 seconds behind it.