Exhaust & Intake Systems
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Real Truck

I gained 1.5 mpg in my 2012 5.0

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 21, 2018 | 11:55 PM
  #1  
Phil in OKC's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma
I gained 1.5 mpg in my 2012 5.0

Just completed a trip from Oklahoma City to Pensacola FL and turned 17.0 mpg on regular 87 octane pure gas. Previous mileage has been 15.5 for years. The only difference is I installed a BBK 85mm TB before I left. I'm going to fill up with 93 octane on the trip back home and see what happens.
 
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2018 | 12:03 AM
  #2  
Bluejay's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 26,080
Likes: 82
From: Burleson/Athens/Brownsboro, TX
Do you always run pure gas? If you are comparing to numbers with an ethanol blend, pure gas will always be better.
 
__________________
Jim
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2018 | 08:00 AM
  #3  
Phil in OKC's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma
Bluejay, yes, the former 15.5 figure is based on pure gas.
 
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2018 | 03:23 PM
  #4  
beechkid's Avatar
Senior Member
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 12
From: California
Because the A/F ratio is a constant and controlled by the ecm, neither the intake or TB would have any effect on MPG.... most likely either environmental conditions induced more effective burn or better fuel blend (even if bought from the same gas station) would be the likely answer
 
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2018 | 06:25 PM
  #5  
Phil in OKC's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma
We'll see what happens on the way back to Oklahoma on Sunday. Gonna drive straight through - 13.5 hours - on 93/91 octane gas.
 
Reply
Old Nov 23, 2018 | 09:32 PM
  #6  
Patman's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 21,337
Likes: 158
From: DFW
Takes more data to back up a claim like that.

interested in more driving/miles and see the results!
 
Reply
Old Nov 23, 2018 | 09:41 PM
  #7  
Phil in OKC's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma
Talking

Originally Posted by Patman
Takes more data to back up a claim like that.

interested in more driving/miles and see the results!
The only "claim" I am making my friend, is what my average mpg computer is registering.
 
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2018 | 01:13 PM
  #8  
JackandJanet's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,887
Likes: 61
From: Among javelinas and scorpions in Zoniestan
I'm with Patman on this. If you're comparing values you are seeing on the instrument panel in the Avg MPG window, then you are likely not seeing what you are actually getting. However, the fact that it is showing a higher average says something changed. I doubt the TB improved things though.

A more likely cause for the improvement would be a constant tailwind on your trip, or, as Bluejay suggested, some change in the gas blend.

- Jack
 
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2018 | 11:54 PM
  #9  
Phil in OKC's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma
Well I will be head west this time, so maybe that will be a head wind? Mileage should drop if it is head wind drag.
 
Reply
Old Nov 25, 2018 | 09:40 AM
  #10  
ManualF150's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,636
Likes: 264
From: Vernon, NY
I've been following this thread for some time, and I'll put my 2 cents in.

For all the years I've been driving, I notice this a lot. Reason being, is long distance highway driving will always yield better fuel mileage. Now, you noted that you got better fuel mileage. There could be a lot to do with that (assuming all weight stays the same, same traffic patterns, etc. In the order of most to least likeliness):

1. Use of cruise control and traffic conditions.
2. Most of the way was downhill.
3. Road conditions.
4. Wind direction.
5. Higher atmospheric pressure (n/a on S/C and T/C engines).
6. Better fuel.

For example: I work at two different places, about the same distance (within 4 tenths of mile). I will call them Work 1 and Work 2. Work 1 is all highway and is downhill most of the way. Work 2 is a mix bag of highway and city, and pretty level. To get home from Work 1, it is all highway and is then uphill. Work 2 is again, a mix bag of highway and city, mostly level.

Work 1 - ~20 mpg combined both ways
Work 2 - ~16 mpg combined both ways

One thing to note, road conditions. Most people don't pay much attention to the road surface. Believe it or not rough surfaced roads decrease fuel economy, versus smooth roads. So those concrete roads that these areas have will typically get the worse fuel mileage versus a smooth tarmac. Another thing to keep in mind.

I, like others, will be interested to see your return readings.
 
Reply
Old Nov 25, 2018 | 11:25 PM
  #11  
Phil in OKC's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma
Just got back from Florida. I was able to average 20.1 mpg when I kept the speed between 55-60. This was during the first part of our trip near sea level. Later, during the middle part of the trip I accelerated to interstate speeds between 70-75 and the averaged dropped to 18. The final third of the trip was driven with no regard to trying to "nurse the throttle" and my truck returned to its normal 15.7 mpg.
 
Reply
Old Nov 25, 2018 | 11:45 PM
  #12  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,528
Likes: 817
From: Joplin MO
Bottom line, the throttle body did nothing for you, as expected.
 
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2018 | 01:43 PM
  #13  
Phil in OKC's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 28
Likes: 2
From: Oklahoma
exactly, GLC!
 
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2018 | 05:43 PM
  #14  
glc's Avatar
glc
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Veteran: Navy
Veteran: Reserves
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 43,528
Likes: 817
From: Joplin MO
Now, if you were to do some internal mods and get a corresponding tune, then the larger TB would have benefits. Does nothing for an engine with stock guts.
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:04 PM.