Ford Transit USA Forum banner

MPG for 3.5 EcoBoost with 3.31 rear end

322K views 788 replies 164 participants last post by  AC Orange 
#1 · (Edited)
It would be helpful if owners of either Vans or Wagons with the 3.5 EB and 3.31 rear end (with or without LS) could post actual MPG numbers as we all start to learn the limits of this "EcoBeast" set up. [just read someplace that Ford got trademark/copyright protection for this name]

For now let's include all lengths and roof heights, using the Transit's computer MPG and/or hand-calculated figures. Running totals for the life of the vehicle, and for various discreet trips will be helpful, for those so inclined, in my opinion.

I will chime in when I get my Wagon in the Spring. For now, it will be interesting to see how other folks are doing.

Thanks

PS -- Edit -- It will be very helpful if you can update your signature (via the User CP at the top right) to include all pertinent information, so that it is not necessary for others to ask about the details of your Transit. Thank you.
 
#2 · (Edited)
Here are some recent 3.5/3.31 MPG reports.

I have a 250 the low roof extended, 3.5 with the 3.31 gears:). It is also Blue (which has 10 more hp than white:laugh:)
. . .
Now for the fuel economy. I run snow tires and have been experiencing low temps. This combination is costing me between 10-15 %. I did manage to get 19 MPG on the Interstate doing about 68 MPH. come spring I can see this van getting 22 MPG:eek:
. . .
http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/ford-transit-general-discussion/6129-my-5-000-mile-review.html


rmcnelly [low roof 130" WB Wagon] on 12/6: http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/67762-post37.html

"Took a rainy road trip up to the mountains and filled up after 420 miles or so. The lie-ometer was showing 20.4 mpg for 2/3rds of the trip when I was keeping the speed at 67mph climbing from sea level up past the Blue Ridge Parkway. The last 1/3rd of the tank included cruising at 74mph much of the time still climbing in elevation, and some city driving. When I filled up, the lie-ometer indicated 19.3 mpg but hand calculated came out to 17.88 mpg. The speedo is very accurate compared to my gps, but I did not check the odometer. The displayed cruise control speed appears off by 1 mph."


and on 12/13: http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/71681-post59.html

"Put 220 miles on her after filling up yesterday afternoon and driving out to see an Antique store today. Did not exceed 67mph on the highway, had some city driving, and the dash showed 20.5mpg when I got home. I had about 20 city miles on it (nothing over 40mph) before we left this morning, and was showing 17.5mpg (even with the warmup this morning as I scraped off the frost). It will easily beat the city mpg estimate."


Other owners of recent 3.5/3.31 deliveries have indicated they will post MPG when they can.
 
#3 ·
I have over 2600 miles on mine now and Tripmeter 2 is showing 18.2 mpg for the last 1900 miles (probably 60-70% highway miles). I'm just going to let Tripmeter 2 keep a running total (except it won't include the first 700 miles or so). Normal load is just me and one passenger. I removed the 3rd and 4th row bench seats (heavy!) last weekend but still have the 2nd row 2 passenger bench and the 3rd row jump seat installed.

The last tank started off really bad. I got caught in some tough city driving, lots of lights and delays, and not exceeding 35 mph. It was showing less than 14 mpg until I went for a 200 mile drive on New Years Day. That didn't go so well either as I couldn't break 18 mpg running 60 mph into a headwind. Made up for it on the return leg but the damage was done. Still, the tank ended with 18.2 mpg.

I've ceased referring to the dash display of mpg as the "Lie-ometer", since I don't believe the gas pumps are well calibrated, and the only constant measurement of fuel used is the Transit's self report..

The sweet spot in town is running it just over 40 mph with very light throttle.


--Rick
 
#4 · (Edited)
Thanks Rick for keeping track of the Tripmeter 2 figure. If 20 MPG is an upper limit, generally speaking, I will be a happy camper when I get my Wagon in the Spring. Your 18.2 MPG over 1900 miles is excellent IMO.

I am guessing that the gas pumps are calibrated more accurately than you seem to feel, as the commerce of an entire industry depends on accuracy there. Whatever . . . , we are all using the same gas pumps (distributing all over the country), so as long as we are all referring to the same "gallon," whether inflated or not in size, our MPG comparisons are useful.

Ditto for the Transit's fuel flow monitor and odometer accuracy. If we are all using the same measuring devices, our comparative MPG figures are useful, even if the base figures are off a bit.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Peter

PS -- Like star gazer (if I am reading him right) I intend to log gallons pumped (to the tenth of a gallon), odometer mileage, and miles run, for all tank fill-ups, in a small spiral notebook as I have done since getting my 1970 Econoline. Otherwise I might find myself listless in life . . . don't you know . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobojay and 6386
#5 · (Edited)
Airedrifter's thread has early MPG in the 14-17 range.

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/...pgs/4882-heres-my-milage-data-1085-miles.html

His recent trip:

Well, I've put 6500 miles on the van and still loving it.

There's snow on the roads this morning, I'll give it a workout in a few minutes.

We took the van on a Christmas tour that went from Va to NC to Iowa to Illinois to Virginia. It performed flawlessly. I'm averaging about 16.6 mpg on the Interstate at 70. I tried one tank of 91 octane and couldn't tell a difference in driving or mpg.
. . .
Full post:

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/81209-post38.html

Thanks Airedrifter and welcome back.
 
#6 · (Edited)
3.5 Eco, 3.31 limited slip, med height, medium length xtl

By tank; Actual measurement. The computer is regularly off by 1 to 2 MPG.


MILES GALS MPG
190 13.5 14.1
211 13.5 15.6
334 18.8 17.8
296 23.8 12.4
238 15.32 15.5
327 20.62 15.9
315 18.7 16.8
311 22.05 14.1
311 22.7 13.7
346 23.4 14.8
266 13.2 20.2
316 23.2 13.6
309 22.1 14.0
200 12.3 16.3 Premium gas
305 20.4 15.0
302 19 15.9
355 21.3 16.7
 
#7 · (Edited)
3.5 Eco, 3.31 limited slip, med height, medium length xtl

By tank; Actual measurement. The computer is regularly off by 1 to 2 MPG.
[snip]
Thanks so much! Is the computer uniformly off (high or low?), or randomly off (sometimes high, sometimes low)?

Thanks again.
 
#9 · (Edited)
Airedrifter, from your tally I get a total of 4932 miles and 323.89 gallons, for an overall average of 15.24 MPG, similar to your previous posts (links above).

Do you happen to recall the driving conditions for the line item with 20.2 MPG over 266 miles? This trip was markedly better.

Thanks.
 
#10 ·
In my Sprinter when the pump shut off that was pretty much it. No matter how long I waited for the diesel foam to settle, I really could get no more fuel in once the auto shut-off of the nozzle occurred. In my Hondas I can get three more gallons of gas in if I stand there patiently, but of course different nozzles react differently.
Are you guys finding that auto shut-off is pretty much the limit or can you top off well beyond that?
Just curious because I truly believe one day my Transit will arrive and I want to know how best to submit some MPG info to the forum.
 
#11 · (Edited)
As long as you repeat a uniform practice, the results should be helpful. Also, a running total does not really depend on the accuracy of each tank being "full."

Gas does not foam like diesel so the top-off issue you raise is less important with gas.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Sorry for the ambiguities. Starting over about gas only . . .

If you are the one pumping the gas, since each pump has its own shut-off system, and these could vary, you will have to nurse each fill-up, pulling the nozzle out of the fill tube as it gets fuller, until you hear the gas getting close to the top, or it overflows, or the pump won't pump any more.

Or you could just let each pump shut off automatically once, and don't top off.

The main point IMO is that there are so many variables in the driving for each tank of gas, that obsessing over whether you have gotten each tank to exactly the same state of "fullness" is a hopeless task, or at least one without much reward. Ditto for speed, grade, winds, humidity, driver style, etc. for each tank full. Even on a dynamometer, it would be difficult to do an accurate multi-variable analysis of things . . .

To each his own, but the running total is more helpful for my use, as over the long run, there is only the long run, Yogi!

PS here I am running afoul of my own preference for no OT posting in this thread about actual MPG results for the owners of the 3.5/3.31 combo. One of these threads would be better IMO:

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/ford-transit-mileage-mpgs/
 
#45 ·
......cut.....

The main point IMO is that there are so many variables in the driving for each tank of gas, that obsessing over whether you have gotten each tank to exactly the same state of "fullness" is a hopeless task, or at least one without much reward. Ditto for speed, grade, winds, humidity, driver style, etc. for each tank full. Even on a dynamometer, it would be difficult to do an accurate multi-variable analysis of things . . .

To each his own, but the running total is more helpful for my use, as over the long run, there is only the long run, Yogi!

......cut......
Peter, with all due respect, if you understand the hopeless task of controlling so many variables, to the point that tracking numbers for the sake of getting numbers seems more of an obsession, then why are you doing it? I'm not sure you ever made the "why" clear.

Perhaps if others understood what you are trying to accomplish "in the long run", they would respect your requests to a greater degree.

OK, that was my 2 cents. No data to report so I'll step aside.


P.S. -- Many owners' manuals caution against topping off the tank. Don't know if Transit manual does. I think it has to do with tank headspace being required for emissions systems to work properly.
 
#15 ·
Well, it's a somewhat complicated picture.

We were just on a 3,000 mile Holiday trip where I dove to NC, then my wife drove to Iowa, then I drove from Iowa back to VA. I would think that at lest 75% of the driving is me.

The milage above was mixed driving before the trip, a lot of highway miles, mixed driving at our destinations, and then a hard highway drive back with lots of rain and then more rain.

BTW, the computer is always higher than the hand calculated. When I fill up, generally I'll top off the tank one time after the automatic top. I've never seen it make more than what? .2 of a gallon difference? Over time, for my purposes, it de minimis.

Also, for what it's worth, my wife drives faster than I do. It's not unusual to look over and see her pushing 80. I'm generally 2 to 5 miles over the speed limit. The one 20 mpg was me being selective in my refilling. I was in Iowa and was on a short mission where I could only drive 55 and had virtually no stops. I took an early refill there just to document the high mpg. That comment should also reinforce my next comment, MPG suffers above 55 MPH! At 80, we were getting about 13.5 or so.

I've recorded every gas purchase I made and my wife got some of hers but didn't note the mileage, so it's not a complete record.

Currently, we're sitting at 6500 miles give or take. I did an oil change at 1000 miles (old school habit) and will get the next one at 8500.

The "wagon" has been pretty flawless. We didn't have any snow or ice in Iowa but we had really cold temps. A couple of mornings it was below 0. Always started, though one morning, even with dual batteries, it had a couple of rpms that were sluggish.

One other odd bit, as this has all the privacy glass and I did haul a large group one time in the really cold weather, I had to remember even when we were at full heat to turn on the AC to keep all those windows defogged. :) It's a quirky vehicle that rocks. :)
 
#16 ·
. . . It's a quirky vehicle that rocks. :)
. . .
:)

Thanks for an excellent comprehensive overview. Very helpful, and consistent with my previous Econoline experiences, and with my expectations for the new Wagon on order. With the 130" WB and low roof, I am hoping to average somewhat higher.

We shall see . . .

Thanks again.
 
#19 · (Edited)
I did some testing today, using only the info display for mpg since I have so few miles on the van so far. This was more for a comparison of towing and none towing to give me an idea what I might expect on a trip next week to florida.

Temps where about 40 with calm wind. Fuel is what dealer put in at the local Kroger supermarket, which is not tier1.

Each leg was exactly the same 30 miles on 4 lane road, avg speed was 55-57 except for a long down and up thru a river valley that I gained up to about 70 at the bottom. So was a fair trip to compare what difference I may get, although at highway speeds of 65 it will be interesting to see how it will hurt it.

I had the tow haul on at first but it was holding at around 2000 rpm and was easy to drop gear and go up to about 2500 rpm. My trailer is only around 2500lb and aerodynamic so I turned off tow haul and it settled down to between 15-1600 rpm and did not feel the least bit like it was bogging down. Might be worth using it in town but with my set up I don't think it will be needed except for maybe very long grades.

Built in brake controller worked well. Easy to set up the gain, which I put a little below half. When I manually hit the brake lever while coasting, I can just feel it grab.

Overall impression, GREAT!! Towed it absolutely fantastic! Very easy on the van, felt better than my F250 pwoerstroke. I will have about 1000lbs of gear in the van but I don't think that will affect it too much.

Here are some pics of my mpg at the end of each run. If this is the overall difference I get towing I will be happy as can be. And if the mpg gauge is even close to accurate I will be happy too.

Oh yea, one of my neighbors passed me on the road and said I need a bigger trailer. He thought an airstream would look good behind it ;)
 

Attachments

#20 ·
Fuel is what dealer put in at the local Kroger supermarket, which is not tier1.
I'm still not convinced that Top Tier means anything, but if it is a real difference it is supposed to be in keeping the injectors and other components clean via the additives, right? Do the Top Tier advocates claim an MPG increase?
 
#21 ·
I doubt an increase in mpg, but if it helps keep internal things cleaner then I will use it.

But my question is how do we know that an independent shell, bp, etc, gas station is actually buying the right fuels?
 
#24 ·
I now have over 3,000 miles on her. The last tank was 17.2mpg (75% city miles).

Something peculiar happened with Tripmeter 2. It should be showing over 2300 miles, but is showing 238.5 miles and I don't remember resetting it? Tripmeter 2 shows 18mpg which I had been watching it slowly drop from the previous 18.2mpg.

I'll continue to let Tripmeter 2 run since it is currently showing what should have been the correct avg for the last 2300 miles or so.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Certainly everyone is free to let this sub-forum

(specifically created to track MPG for the 3.5/3.31 drive train [ please re-read the first post ] )

Devolve

into a free-for-all spasm of mental incontinence . . .

OR

everyone can see the value of sticking to a specific topic for a consciously recognized purpose.


Seems to me that people mainly look to the right, to see what are the the most "Recent Discussions" -- pick one that looks interesting

-- regardless of what sub-forum it is in
-- regardless of what the first post requests for participation in the sub-forum

and just post away yadda yadda yadda . . . .


Where was it yesterday? Was it Whitedog who asked that people get back on topic regarding MPGs for idling time with the diesel?

A refreshing breath of air!


The point is: what do YOU want this place to be?


PS -- everyone here is free to start his or her own sub-forums for specific purposes, like Whitedog did. If you can't respect the parameters of discussion here, why should anyone respect your requests when YOU start your own topic ?

Do unto others . . .
 
#30 · (Edited)
Don't mean to derail this thread, but since we're on the subject of EcoBoost (and MPG), look what Ford is bringing back, from a nine year hiatus:

The new GT is the sickest car Ford has ever made | The Verge

Always thought the GT was the most amazing sounding street legal car, not just the exhaust under acceleration, but the mechanicals at work even at idle. Wonder how this will compare, and what the MPG will be (hah - not something a buyer will worry about).
 
#34 ·
  • Like
Reactions: ultane
#31 ·
It does have the 3.5 twin turbo V-6!
 
#35 ·
I did actually. The first day and tank of gas netted me 18.6mpg with a mix of 65-70mph on the interstate and 50-55mph on highway. Mostly flat. Some traffic. The days that killed the mpg were all the up and down hilly bits on the west coast on 101 and 1. It's really hilly!

I have eeked out 21.6mpg over a fairly flat 20 mile section of road near my home. 35-40mph continuous with no stops. Unless you live in Kansas though that wouldn't be a very realistic mpg figure.

In town here in Bellingham mpg is the worst. Bellingham is small, lots of stop and go, and really hilly. As such I get mid-13s with 100% city driving. But that's pretty unique to here I think. Heck, my motorcycles only get mid to high 20s here! It's all sitting and accelerating from stop signs around here.

I'll post some window covering photos soon. Thanks guys.
Thanks for the MPG updates in your post on the other thread.

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/...033-inaugural-van-camping-trip.html#post84561

Peter
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobojay
#36 ·
OK its public, the GT (600hp ecoboost V6) has dual fuel systems. GDI and port injection.
The port injection is better for low speed response, and washing the pcv contaminants off the intake valves. The GDI steps in for higher loads.
This is the ecoboost version 2, I have seen the engine, should be out in 2016.
The new Volkswagen GTI for 2015 has the same system, The GDI engines will all go this way.
This is how the problem is being corrected, current users of gen. #1 engine consider the filter/catch can system as Orton has noted (info on the F150 site)
 
#39 ·
It seemed, after all, like a fairly simple invitation . . .

It would be helpful if owners of either Vans or Wagons with the 3.5 EB and 3.31 rear end (with or without LS) could post actual MPG numbers as we all start to learn the limits of this "EcoBeast" set up. [just read someplace that Ford got trademark/copyright protection for this name]

For now let's include all lengths and roof heights, using the Transit's computer MPG and/or hand-calculated figures. Running totals for the life of the vehicle, and for various discreet trips will be helpful, for those so inclined, in my opinion.

I will chime in when I get my Wagon in the Spring. For now, it will be interesting to see how other folks are doing.

Thanks
 
#40 ·
The Fuel economy is part of the competion @ Le Mans, Ford won the race in 1967 and had the best fuel economy (another award)
Won the race in 1966,1967,1968,1969. Henry Ford 2 made a complete ASS out of Enzo Ferrari to the world.
They are going back the 50th year with the new car (GT) and the ecobeast V6
MPG is a important factor
 
#41 · (Edited)
#42 ·
Just went thru my 1st tank of gas. Display stayed around 17-18 mpg empty. Then I started to load it up. I haven't weighed it yet, but guess around 8000 lbs. My display ended with 15.2 mpg. I drive mostly around town doing service calls. Next tank I'll hand calculate. If the 15 mpg is true it's a big improvement over my express van that got 12.
Very happy with van so far. Was worth the wait.
 
#43 · (Edited)
Thanks for the report, those seem like excellent MPG figures for the high roof extended Transit IMO. Looking forward to more MPG reports down the road . . .

If you feel like it, you could also post general feedback (other than MPG) on the Actual Delivery thread (or perhaps on your own thread if you want to post lots of photos, which are enjoyed by all!):

http://www.fordtransitusaforum.com/...6-actual-delivery-custom-ordered-transit.html

Thanks
 
#44 ·
Fuel MPG

I have about 2000 miles on our T-250 med/roof 148" WB up fit and loaded with tools and some supplies. We drive local and local hwy. traffic in Miami, FL and we are getting 13.1 to 13.3 on the dashboard read out...not by figuring gallons used and miles driven. I am not the one that drives it much as my staff does so I do not know what overall conditions or how heavy their foot is on the gas. The times that I have driven it I like it a lot, so far superior to the 2001 E-150 in all respects there is no comparison. Now with the roof rack and interior shelving, bulkhead we are very satisfied in making the decision to purchase this vs. the Sprinter type line. Factory did not install one option we paid for and ordered...the front map lights, installed the standard map light and now dealer is waiting on how to install this missing part... they have the part...that took a month or more and now need to figure out how it is done, does the standard light module come out and the new map light fit in its place or will the entire overhead shelf have to removed and new one put in to accommodate the correct "map" light? Anyone know this? Dealer has been very responsive and overall very helpful...just not prepared and do not have working knowledge of this new van at all. Jeff
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top