For a 4x4 SCREW.

 

I think the reason they aren't advertising the mileage is because they don't want to slow the sales of their own 5l engined trucks that they are already producing. If it came out too early that the EB had significantly better mileage, everyone would wait for the EB engine.

 

I know Ford is getting 23 Hwy with the 3.7 in the 4x2 screw. So they are champs of overall mpg crown. I also know the Ecoboost is powerful beyond that of the key competitors, but it seems to me that GM can still claim somewhat of a mixed decision (assuming the 21 Hwy is correct for the Ecoboost) Traditional advertising would go something like this, "Chevy.....the only V8 with 300+ HP and 21 MPG in a 4x4 crew" I know they are underpowered even against the Ford six, but some people only look at the advertising. I thought Ford was going to deliver the knock out punch with performance and MPG in this motor. I'm a little disappointed in a "mixed" victory. I think some will back off all the turbos and technology for fear of an expensive repair down the road as well as a higher purchase price especially if they aren't rewarded with higher mpg. JMHO.

 

Doesn't the 5.0 get the same numbers?

 

5.0 in a 4x4 is 14/19

For 2wd it is 15/21

 

Let's say that the 19MPG is right for the 5.0 and 26 is what the EB will get on the freeway.

36 gal X 19 MPG = 684 miles (5.0)

26 Gal X 26 MPG = 676 Miles ( Ecoboost)

What's the big deal? Sure it would be nice to have an additional 10 gal fuel capacity but it's not that big of a deal.

Now I don't think the EB is going to get 26, more like 23 at best but the 5.0 isn't going to get 19 either. I think the EB will get 5 or 6 mpg better.

So if that's the case:

36 X 17 = 612

26 X 23 = 598

 

Considering that most trucks today only get around 400 miles (give or take a few) per tank, I think that 500 plus per tank is pretty darn good "range".

My Mrs. drives a Toyota RAV4.....even on long highway trips, about 300 miles per tank is max.
I suppose it's all in one's perspective. If I can get nearly 600 miles per tank with a new EB, I'm putting it in the "that's a good thing" column.

 

Even at only 300 miles a tank, the truck will have a longer range than your bladder.

 

Real world driving, my dad's '10 Fusion 4cyl (non hybrid) with 20k on it

 

If I will be saving $120/mo+/- in gas, that's more mod money and I will be all for it.

 

 

Range is only part of the equation, and a very small part if you ask me. For me, it's all about the cost of fuel - if I can get 35% better fuel economy, I am saving a considerable chunk of change over the life of the truck. If I were all that worried about the range being 10 miles less per tank and I actually needed an extended range, I would get the EB and retrofit the 36 gallon tank from a totaled truck.

And for what it's worth, my current daily does about 220 miles per 16 gallon tank, so 500+ should suffice!

 

IMHO the issue is they force us to take the EB with the max tow pkg below Lariat, plus available in the max tow lariat +. Well I don't care what it gets for mpg but when your towing your tank can't be too big. So at minimum the Max tow EB should have had the large tank. Stupid error on Fords part.

 

Not if they were going for max fuel economy. The larger tank results in more weight having to be carried, lowering fuel economy. Just the gasoline will weigh an extra 60 lbs in addition to the extra metal in the gas tank.

 

That amount of weight would have hardly no difference. For every 500 lbs you gain about .7 mpg