1.6L EcoBoost Fuel Economy

[Maryse Robertson]

Bought mine in March. My daily average is 27 MPG with going to work 10 mile one way and hitting some lights on the way, every mile or so.

 

But One time on the freeway I did 44 MPG on cruise control going east on 696 at 73 miles per hour no traffic. I was really impressed.

 

6100 miles; 27 MPG avg; 70/30; conservative.

 

I took a picture just before it reached it .

Edited August 13, 2013 by Maryse Robertson

[Maryse Robertson]

:happy feet:

Edited August 13, 2013 by Maryse Robertson

[frankhat]

Bought mine in March. My daily average is 27 MPG with going to work 10 mile one way and hitting some lights on the way, every mile or so.

 

But One time on the freeway I did 44 MPG on cruise control going east on 696 at 73 miles per hour no traffic. I was really impressed.

 

6100 miles; 27 MPG avg; 70/30; conservative.

 

I took a picture just before it reached it .

So jealous, my car gets beat in city commute. 20.5 MPG average since I go on the freeway like twice a month. lol.

[Digital Bill]

Just returned from two day trip from Las Vegas to Reno. Got 35.0 going to Reno and 33.8 on the trip back. Coming back we had a 25-mph head wind. Traveled at 70 mph with cruse on most of the time. Trip up To Reno started at 2000ft, hit 6600ft at Tonapah and back down to 5000ft in Reno. The turbo is great in high altitude. No loss of power! Great for passing big rigs on the Highway.

[Digital Bill]

Went to Anaheim, Ca. from Las Vegas and got 36.2 on the trip there. Overall trip there and back was 35.0. Now have 7000 miles on the car and am very happy with the mileage and the power climbing hills at 70 mph. No downshifting going uphill. Around town is about 23-24 depending on how many short trips are taken.

[mffitz]

I've gone as far as 30 miles past zero range and if the rated tank size is right I should be able to go to -60 miles. Hasn't anybody run one of these things out go gas yet to see what the tank really holds? Some vehicles have what they call "unusable fuel" so the whole 16.6 gal. might not be available but I'm not brave enough to find out.

[akirby]

Not a good idea. You can ruin the fuel pump that way.

[junehhan]

Since engines that run direct injection require higher levels of pressure from the fuel pump, I would especially be concerned if trying to run the tank empty. If these fuel pumps have to work harder than those in a standard multiport fuel injection setup, they may even run hotter. Someone who is directly experienced will have to chime in though as I am not an expert. I run my Fusion no lower than a 1/4 of a tank just to be on the safe side. You never know when a batch of lousy or even contaminated fuel will hit the local stations.

[drolds1]

There's a reason they include the following in the OM:

 

 

Avoid running out of fuel because this

situation may have an adverse effect on

powertrain components.

 

I've don't understood why anyone would voluntarily run their car out of fuel.

[Embery]

I have a 2013 Fusion SE with the 1.6 liter and manual transmission and I guess I have gotten decent mileage with it compared to some of what I am seeing here. I bought it with 3100 miles on it and drive it for my job which requires travel. On my highway trips in the Kansas and Oklahoma area, I have averaged around 30 mpg according to the trip computer. I was disappointed with this when compared to the 37 EPA number. I have observed that the fuel economy is very sensitive to speed and that going 70 mph or less makes a 3 to 4 mpg improvement easily, but I myself can't stand to drive less than +7 over a posted limit.

 

What is interesting however, is that I just completed a trip out to NW New Mexico going through S Colorado from Kansas and when I got into higher altitude the fuel mileage improved to around 35 mpg average for the time I was in the mountains and NW New Mexico. This struck me as counter intuitive because of less oxygen and added demand on the engine to climb slopes. I guess you get a little return on the downslopes, but I would think in general fuel economy would be worse in mountain driving. As a side note, I have to say I was amazed by low end torque coming out of the 1.6 when climbing. There was actually no need to downshift out of 6th and it could accelerate from 65 mph up some steep climbs at roughly I/2 throttle. Back to the fuel mileage, I had filled up in Gallup, NM and was basically going North from there, gaining in elevation mind you, and got past 38 mpg at around the 100 mile point after the fill up It declined from there due to steeper elevation climb and admittedly, I had been stuck behind some slow traffic at several points early on keeping me 60 mph average I would guess.

 

For the trip as whole:

1692.9 miles

32.7 mpg

51.62 gallons used

30:41:36 elapsed time (I did have multiple times of letting it idle 3 or 4 minutes)

I would estimate 15/85 city/hwy driving 70% conservatively

Ending total car mileage 8303 miles

 

I'm curious to know what anybody thinks about better mileage at higher altitude. It makes me think that the programming in the computer to compensate for the lower oxygen must result in an overall better tune for fuel mileage.

 

Thanks

[akirby]

My guess is you got 100% gas in Gallup instead of E-10. Happened to me on the East Coast - mileage jumped 2-3 mpg almost immediately.

[junehhan]

From what I am reading, it is starting to sound like there is the possibility that more ethanol may start being blended. Most Fords in the last couple years are already rated to use up to E15, and some of the new engines are now being rated at E20. Right now most of us in the Midwest have no choice but to run this crummy E10 blend all year long, so get ready to get a whole new level of B&M'ing in the forums if E15 and even E20 start becoming available at more than a few isolated pumps in the corn states. When I just got back from Alaska and drive from Ohio to Seattle, one of the first things I noticed was a jump in fuel economy for my truck(traded in for my 2014 Fusion) when driving in states like Iowa, South Dakota, and Montana where E0 is sold as 87 octane and E10 is sold as 89 octane(86 and 88.5 octane respectively in MT). I found that I was able to drive at much higher speeds in these states and still achieve similar fuel economy as I did running on E10 from Ohio through Illinois. From Ohio through Illinois, I averaged roughly 65-70mph while averaging 75-83mph in Iowa, SD, and MT. Fuel economy after western SD became a bit erratic due to having to deal with LOTS of hills along with an absolutely insane crosswind.

Edited January 22, 2014 by junehhan

[akirby]

I thought they shot down E15 as not being viable due to potential engine damage.

[junehhan]

I thought they shot down E15 as not being viable due to potential engine damage.

E15 is already being offered at isolated stations in a couple of the corn belt states. Unless there are significant changes to the renewable fuels act, it paves the way for the possible use of more corn juice. I have no problem with ethanol so long as they keep it in E85. So far, those E15 stations offer it as an option.

 

Ford appears to be preparing for a just in case scenario as they are getting ready to release their first E20 capable engine in the Eboboost27

[mffitz]

There's a reason they include the following in the OM:

 

 

I've don't understood why anyone would voluntarily run their car out of fuel.

All good points, which is why I'm not willing to run my tank dry myself. I just figured someone would have done it by accident by now and I wanted to know if they could really put 16.5 gallons back into the tank or if practically speaking the rated capacity is not all useable fuel. Last week I ran it 28 miles past zero range and nominally still had 1.2 gallons in the tank. At that rate I should be able to go 100 miles past when the low fuel light comes on. I average a pretty constant 30 mpg.

[fusion1.6]

Realize this thread is dead, but I've owned three Fusions in the past 3 years (2 concurrently). Right now we have a 1.6L fusion SE from 2013, and we just picked up a 2.5 SE yesterday, as well as a 2012 Fusion 2.5 that we just traded in for it.

 

The 1.6L fuel economy in city driving is WOEFUL. Expect to average 15-16 MPG in the city (talking real city driving. constant stop and go, 25 mph or less), and if you really feather the throttle and manually shift to the highest gear as soon as possible, you can irk out 18-19, maybe 20. Certainly you'll never see Ford's 23 mpg claim.

 

In mixed driving, I also avg much lower than Ford claims, usually netting around 24 mpg.

 

However, on strict highway driving, this engine really shines in the fuel economy department. You can easily exceed the 36 mpg claim, and i've seen as high as 50 mpg on the trip computer if the road is flat and the cruise is set to 55. If you keep your foot out of it, you should average 40+. If you decide to drive at around 80 mph (as I often do), and drive in a mountainous region (as I need to when traversing PA), you can still expect to average 32-33 mpg, which is damn good.

 

So if you're thinking about getting a pre-owned 1.6, or I suppose even the 1.5 (as I assume they're nearly identical), think about what kind of driving you do. If you take long road trips, the motor will be perfect for you. If you're a city dweller, you might be better off with the 2.5.

 

In mixed driving, my 2.5 actually averaged a higher mpg.

 

Anybody else agree with this claim?

[DirkBelig]

I picked up a 2015 Fusion with 2.5L 6 weeks ago and the fuel economy lays waste to the terminally terrible mileage the 1.6L EcoScam did. As I detailed in this thread, I got under 20 mpg in 80% hwy driving for the first 3K miles and over 22,000 miles in two years I never saw an average above 24-25 mpg unless it was all highway on cruise control at 65 mph. The new car, with a tight engine, is already doing over 25 mpg. They redesigned the Trip 1 readout to no longer display gallons used (it's like Trip 2 was; so stupid) and the gas filler is still not as good as it should be to get topped off, but I can tell mileage/range has improved because I used to gas up every 7-8 days and I just filled up for the 4th time after 42 days. As I noted way back when, the fuel economy guys at Ford told me that I should've asked them what to buy and they would've told me the 2.5L.

[akirby]

Ford doesn't CLAIM anything. They run the EPA mandated test and publish the results as required by federal law.

 

I'm tired of people who think Ford just makes up those numbers. They don't and if the EPA ran the test they'd get the same numbers within a tiny percentage.

 

The fact is the ecoboost engines will yield EPA results if you drive it just like the EPA test - which includes ethanol free pure gasoline (not E-10) and an engine that's already warmed up. When you drive a cold engine with E-10 you're already at a disadvantage. Short trips are terrible.

 

Why don't NA engines have these problems? They do but they're not as sensitive as the ecoboost engines and the range of actual mpg is smaller than ecoboost. Ecoboost allows you to get much better mpg if you drive it the right way under the right circumstances but it can also do much worse.

 

There is nothing Ford can do unless the EPA changes the tests or the formulas.

[u0061914]

So, I am going to disagree with you. I have been away from this forum for quite a while, but if you remember I had a 2013 with a 1.6 echo boost. I struggled with the mileage from day one. What I found is that anytime the temps dropped below about 50 degrees, my mileage tanked. In the summer the summer it was considerably better. I am talking about a 10-15mpg hit! Since then I traded that one in on a 2014 Fusion with a 1.5 Eco boost. I can't say enough good things about this one. In the summer, I can get up to 38 mpg. In the winter it drops about 2-3. Mpg but nothing like the 2013 I had. My guess is that there was something with the tune not quite right in cold weather with that one. I would say though that if you learn how to drive an ecoboost for max economy you will get better results.

 

With the 2014 1.5, I could not be happer. I think they finally got it right

[akirby]

I think some vehicles are defective in some way causing much lower mpg than normal.

[junehhan]

I don't ever buy a first model year vehicle mainly because there is a learning curve involved. No matter what kind of testing and torture testing is done, it will often leave some variables unaccounted for. Other times and rarely there are other issues whether mechanical or electrical that can cause large variances. With small displacement turbocharged engines, there is definitely a learning curve just like there is one for hybrids in general. Lots of noobs to the world of hybrids complain about fuel economy and most eventually learn ways to maximize fuel economy. The way I see people driving around my part of the woods, it is no surprise why so many people complain that they can't get near the advertised fuel economy ratings. If you treat each stop sign or red light like a drag strip and then drive 20mph over the speed limit on the interstate, NO vehicle is going to get advertised speeds and the Ecoboosts especially do bad because you are in boost all the time.