Jump to content
kp613

Gas mileage

Recommended Posts

Hey there. Just purchased a new 16' Ford Edge SEL 2.0L AWD.

 

I am getting about 7.2L / 100km. Not more than 420km per tank. I personally find this to be horrible. Is this an issue with these vehicles? Is this just mine that is so low.

 

What is the average most of you are getting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try browsing through these: http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/edge/2016?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

 

If your engine is new, there is a break in period, i believe it even says so in the manual. I think it's around 5,000 miles, could be wrong on that. It basically states that your gas mileage is going to be all over the place for the first few thousand miles until the engine breaks in & the car learns your driving habits, like transmission shift points.

 

Currently, i average around 25 mpg or 10.6286 kpl. My average miles per tank is 318.9 or 513.2198 kilometers per tank.

 

Also i don't know if they change your fuel properties up there or not, but I've noticed about a 3 mpg drop since the fuel has switched to winter blend. I'm also fwd so my stats are going to be slightly better than yours anyways because i don't have the rear drivetrain to worry about.

Edited by lildisco
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there. Just purchased a new 16' Ford Edge SEL 2.0L AWD.

 

I am getting about 7.2L / 100km. Not more than 420km per tank. I personally find this to be horrible. Is this an issue with these vehicles? Is this just mine that is so low.

 

What is the average most of you are getting?

7.2L / 100km is good. The 2.0L is rated worse than what you're getting. But if you max out at 420 km / tank then the computer is lying about your fuel economy. Its probably closer to the city rating of the 2.0L. I have seen my fuel econ get worse since the start of winter, which is expected. And as lildisco said, if the engine isnt broken in yet then that also impacts it aswell.

Edited by Beezz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I bought it as a demo model so it has 13000K once I got it. 420 to a tank was hwy btw. City I'm getting avg 350.

I'm coming from a 12' AWD legacy with a 3.6R engine. City I would get over 550 and hwy close to 750.

 

That's why I'm curious. It doesn't seem right. I thought I would be getting the same, if not better.

 

Both vehicles have same size tank as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're driving all highway, i noticed that if there's no headwind or hilly sections, i can get closer to 30mpg or higher. Too much pass 65mph & my fuel economy tanks, barely getting passed 25-26mpg. Planning ahead for stops & acceleration really help. Remember at stop lights you're getting 0mpg & accelerating you get far worse mpg than cruising. Anytime you're accelerating at highway speeds, you're more than likely generating boost & using more fuel. Also using the A/C will zap a few mpg's/kpl's as well.

Edited by lildisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah thats not normal at all then, have the dealer take a look. 350 in the city is horribly low for the 2.0L. I drive like a goon and still get 450-550 km to a tank in mixed with the 2.7L.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mileage depends on your driving style as well......

 

With every vehicle that I have purchased, once I learn that vehicle and through the use of an ultragauge I've been able to top the rated mileage.

 

Seeing in real time what your right foot is causing for fuel consumption as well as learning the best way to accelerate/maintain speed for mileage makes a world of difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beezz, thanks. I will bring it in. I drove like a dick in my Subaru. In this I'm actually cautious trying to save gas, and it's worse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EB engines need "goose-ing" once in a while to help prevent carbon buildup on the backs on the intake valves. Can be something as simple as that. Slugging the engine really is to no benefit, let the computer do its' job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many moons ago, Mobile gasoline used to sponsor a cross-country drive involving several different car makes, but just using Mobile gasoline (to "prove" how much better fuel economy you could get with Mobilegas).

Of course they used every trick in the book, but they disclosed the real trick was how they trained their drivers. They use to place a raw egg between the drivers foot and gas petal and the driver had to qualify in their driving school without braking the egg. The most difficult time was accelerating from a stop.

Basically they figured it was this trick alone that accounted for the bulk of the improvement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there. Just purchased a new 16' Ford Edge SEL 2.0L AWD.

 

I am getting about 7.2L / 100km. Not more than 420km per tank. I personally find this to be horrible. Is this an issue with these vehicles? Is this just mine that is so low.

 

What is the average most of you are getting?

Your not happy with 39mpg???

 

I know with my 2.7 if I drive like a normal human being(as my wife calls it) I will get around 31/32 mpg on the highway.

Ive had a trip log going for about 12000km and my average fuel economy is 24mpg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rear muffler is literally caked in carbon... can only imagine what the valves look like now. And as wwwperfa_zn0w said, slugging doesn't do it any good either, cause low rpm acceleration usually makes more boost and burns more fuel as opposed to quickly up shifting and accelerating. Either way, 350km/tank is so bad, something is definitely up. cds71, I think that kp613's trip meter is lying about the 7.2L/100 km as kp613 said they only get 420km/tank at most, which would mean the trip meter should read something 15+L/100km (at 420 km/68 L) which is crazy for mixed driving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not happy with 39mpg???

 

I know with my 2.7 if I drive like a normal human being(as my wife calls it) I will get around 31/32 mpg on the highway.

Ive had a trip log going for about 12000km and my average fuel economy is 24mpg.

 

For those of us in the US, the 7.2 L/km equals 39.2 mpg (Imperial gallons) which is only 32.7 mpg (US gallons). But the point is well taken... if that really was the mileage then it would be nothing to complain about.

 

Have you tried calculating the mileage manually? That would tell you whether the problem is an optimistic mileage calculator or a problem with the fuel gauge indicating you have less than actual (i.e. you're filling up when you still have more gas left in the tank than is indicated).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I receive my vehicle back tomorrow, after they have fixed the blown rear window. Will calculate manually. Report exact city and hwy kms and total amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rear muffler is literally caked in carbon... can only imagine what the valves look like now. And as wwwperfa_zn0w said, slugging doesn't do it any good either, cause low rpm acceleration usually makes more boost and burns more fuel as opposed to quickly up shifting and accelerating. Either way, 350km/tank is so bad, something is definitely up. cds71, I think that kp613's trip meter is lying about the 7.2L/100 km as kp613 said they only get 420km/tank at most, which would mean the trip meter should read something 15+L/100km (at 420 km/68 L) which is crazy for mixed driving.

Yes exactly....cause when i get a consistant 11L/100km....is usually see almost 500km per tank......so yes something seems a lil funky with his trip meter.

 

Im actually going to install a catch can which should really help out with the carbon buildup on the the valves.....mind you I have not heard of a 2.7 failing due to valve train coking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No failure attributed to valve train coking on the 3.5 EB either. It's just that slow aging process that you don't notice until you are pretty far along. Mileage and performance suffer that slow decline, spark plugs want to give up the ghost but the computer keeps them firing ... Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ecoboosts that seem to have more carbon issues are the 2.0 and the 2.3. The 2.7 is still too new, but there are a ton of 3.5's in the F150's that have a ton of miles on them without having carbon issues yet. I suspect that the 2.7's will be similar considering that it was an all new engine designed from the ground up to do what it does. Also looking at soot covered tailpipes is not an indication of how much carbon the backside of the intake valves have. It is the nature of these GTDI engines in that boost and higher compression ratios with DI will mean extra particulates. They also tend to run a little richer as a safety measure as it keeps things cooler which means more unburnt stuff coming out as well.

Edited by junehhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a recent trip down to Southern Ohio & back. Made it there & back on 1 tank 381 miles on winter mix fuel & around 75mph. Car said i averaged 27mpg, actual calculation was 25.8 on 14.77 gallons. Not too snabby. I gained a lot when speeds were below 65. The 2nd pic of the computer was before i drove from home to the gas station.

post-41964-0-77492500-1484534935_thumb.png

post-41964-0-04513200-1484534975_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, so I finally received my vehicle back and this is what my guage is showing after a complete fill up. The above is about 60/40 city/hwy.

post-44793-0-29354900-1484927409_thumb.png

post-44793-0-01604500-1484927427_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you filled up the car & it didn't reset? Or do you mean that you filled up your car & that's what the computer said you did? Did you manually calculate yoir tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reset it after filling. I got 384km (238miles) from a full tank of gas. With approximately 26km remaining.

@60/40 city/hwy

 

You ask if I manually calculated? What do you mean? I reset the trip for this tank of gas. How else do you manually track?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manually calculating mileage is done by filling up the vehicle, resetting the trip meter or noting the odometer reading, driving around for a while until more fuel is needed, filling up again and noting the number of liters/gallons used along with the trip meter or new odometer reading, then dividing miles by gallons (for miles per gallon) or liters times 100 divided by kilometers (for liters per 100 km).

 

Basically it eliminates the possibility that the value shown in the dash is incorrect (they are almost always inaccurate to some extent although usually a fairly small difference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E.g. - you fill up with gas and your odometer says 19000 kms. You drive until you need gas again. You put in 40 litres of gas and your odometer now reads 19,400 kms so you drove 400 kms on 40 litres of fuel. 40*100/400 = 10 litres/100km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×