dfw

**JDMLOL** · 05-12-2014, 09:18 PM

There are so many hidden variables with fuelly from what I can see. For starters, there is no distinguishment between the EB and the 3.7L N/A v6 on the filters. Next, there is no distinguishment between 4wd, 2wd, what kind of work the truck is being used for, driving style, or if the truck is lifted on 37's. Unless the user happens to have a crappy pic of their truck. All I can tell you is that I can hop in my dad's truck, get on the interstate and have absolutely no problem getting 20+ mpg all day long.

**DirtyD** · 05-12-2014, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Crimson600+HP

I understand a couple people are getting decent mileage with their EB. But being a statistics guy, I look at averages with a decent pool to pull data from. Based on the information at fuelly (which everyday people update their fuel consumption via text), the EB trucks average in the 15's.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-150/gas%20v6/truck

That is proof, no heresay or "that one time I got XX MPG and that is what I will tell everyone because I don't want to be wrong about the vehicle I bought."

Originally Posted by JDMLOL

There are so many hidden variables with fuelly from what I can see. For starters, there is no distinguishment between the EB and the 3.7L N/A v6 on the filters. Next, there is no distinguishment between 4wd, 2wd, what kind of work the truck is being used for, driving style, or if the truck is lifted on 37's. Unless the user happens have a crappy pic of their truck. All I can tell you is that I can hop in my dad's truck, get on the interstate and have absolutely no problem getting 20+ mpg all day long.

The F150 boards are a good source for what real EB owners are seeing. I know awhile back there was a big stink rising about people not getting the mileage Ford was claiming.

It's not just F150s though, because there have been a number of people with EB explorers and escapes that have the same complaint.

**Crimson600+HP** · 05-13-2014, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by JDMLOL

There are so many hidden variables with fuelly from what I can see. For starters, there is no distinguishment between the EB and the 3.7L N/A v6 on the filters. Next, there is no distinguishment between 4wd, 2wd, what kind of work the truck is being used for, driving style, or if the truck is lifted on 37's. Unless the user happens to have a crappy pic of their truck. All I can tell you is that I can hop in my dad's truck, get on the interstate and have absolutely no problem getting 20+ mpg all day long.

The pool of data doesn't distinguish all that true. But it is safe to say that ford didn't sell too many 3.7l v6 F150s in 2013, an overwhelming majority will be the EB judging on the profile photos. To have a loaded test where only 2wd or 4wd is what I don't want. I want to see the average from all over America because that is how getting averages work. Don't want data from trucks in a vacuum.

I think forums are the worst place to get the truth, particularly with domestic brand forums. Most people are brand loyal (which I am not) & won't admit when they have a vehicle that gets beat by someone else. All I know is I won't buy an EB based on what I believe are poor results in terms of fuel economy. Towing performance, yes I think it produces the best numbers. However, I still have my doubts on longevity of those engines vs a tradition NA V8.

re-rx7 · 05-13-2014, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Crimson600+HP

The pool of data doesn't distinguish all that true. But it is safe to say that ford didn't sell too many 3.7l v6 F150s in 2013, an overwhelming majority will be the EB judging on the profile photos. To have a loaded test where only 2wd or 4wd is what I don't want. I want to see the average from all over America because that is how getting averages work. Don't want data from trucks in a vacuum.

I think forums are the worst place to get the truth, particularly with domestic brand forums. Most people are brand loyal (which I am not) & won't admit when they have a vehicle that gets beat by someone else. All I know is I won't buy an EB based on what I believe are poor results in terms of fuel economy. Towing performance, yes I think it produces the best numbers. However, I still have my doubts on longevity of those engines vs a tradition NA V8.

Why do you question longevity?

**DirtyD** · 05-13-2014, 09:20 AM

Consumers just haven't had the trucks long enough to say they are reliable in higher mileage applications. Same with the 6.7 PSD, 5.0, etc. All of these motors are still new by todays standards, so only time will tell how they live up to high mileage.

Yeah, Ford did a torture test themselves, but nobody else has done so, so 1 data point can't be taken as the truth.

**Crimson600+HP** · 05-13-2014, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by re-rx7

Why do you question longevity?

Longevity is only questioned because of fairly new tech. A twin turbo designed for heavier duty use instead of speed is new tech. The reliabilty of an engine constantly being fed boost seems like greater chances for things to fail vs. a traditional V8 which loafs along.

This is just my speculation though. I have no data to back it up, just me being skeptical. Diesels have proven that a turbo'd engine can last, but the characteristics between the two engines are quite different. I think the EB can be reliable as a heavier duty engine, but I wouldn't want to put my money there until these things have more data points (only in terms of longevity, I don't think the fuel economy will ever be there).

**Junkie** · 05-13-2014, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by rlhay2

A statement is made that diesel prices are likely to increase in the future but gas prices won't do the same? What logical basis is this assumption drawn from?

From what I have seen in this thread, others share factual data and you respond with hyperbole, conjecture and speculation.

I see trolling.

It seems his only reason to post here is to troll and post random nonsense BS. Anything that isn't "ford is the greatest ever" gets his attention lol.