Fuel economy is a funny thing. For years we’ve soldiered on with new or incumbent models posting just about the same miles per gallon as the models that preceded them. Then gas topped $4 and automakers magically began pulling a few more mpgs out of thin air. General Motors was the first to pull off this magic trick with its XFE range of vehicles, and Ford has now matched GM’s feat on some of its 2009 vehicles.
According to the EPA’s 2009 fuel economy ratings, Ford has managed to wring a few more mpgs out of its lineup of trucks, SUVs and crossover vehicles.
The all-new Ford F-150 will see a 1 mpg bump in both city and highway mileage, thanks to a new three valve per cylinder setup and a six-speed transmission. More importantly, the F-150’s rating of 15/20 mpg city/highway beats out offerings from Dodge, Toyota and Nissan and ties General Motors for the top spot in full-size truck fuel economy.
Although the Expedition and Flex remain relatively unchanged for 2009, Ford also managed to get a few more mpgs out of both models. The Expedition will receive a rather significant 2 mpg bump in fuel mileage, going from 12/18 mpg city/highway to 14/20, while the Flex’s city mileage has been improved by 1 mpg to register 17/24 mpg city/highway.
Ford’s trio of small crossovers – the Ford Escape, Mazda Tribute and Mercury Mariner – will also receive an extra 2 mpg highway for 2009. All three are rated at 20/28 mpg city/highway.
Although it’s good to see that automakers are focused on offering vehicles with improved mileage, it’s frustrating as a consumer to see that such improves are rather easy to achieve. If it was so easy to add 1 to 2 mpg, why weren’t the automakers doing this sooner? Kind of makes you wonder.
09/09, 7:46 PM
posted by:
johnnycanuck
Well, not really. The possibility that we’re all descended from aliens makes me wonder. This is just a case of following the path of least (rolling) resistance.
09/09, 7:51 PM
posted by:
tyler_is_aero_tt
Too bad nobody cares about Fords anymore.
09/09, 7:58 PM
posted by:
A4
wahhh why didnt you do it sooner
i didnt wonder it your just trying to piss on domestics as usual lln
09/09, 9:21 PM
posted by:
dl_caldwell
It’s mostly in the software. Tune the engine for performance you will get performance at the expense of MPG, tune it for maximum efficiency and you will get less performance. Two years ago they where competing on 0-60 times, now it’s MPG. I’m amazed this surprises anyone…
09/09, 10:04 PM
posted by:
jimothy
“More importantly, the F-150’s rating of 15/20 mpg city/highway beats out offerings from Dodge, Toyota and Nissan and ties General Motors for the top spot in full-size truck fuel economy.”
Official numbers aren’t out yet, but the new Ram is supposed to reach 17/23 MPG with improvements to weight, aerodynamics, and a more effecient Hemi. These numbers seem hard to believe, but we should soon find out. While Dodge hasn’t released numbers yet, they have said it’ll top Ford and GM.
09/09, 10:42 PM
posted by:
JasonZ
jimothy – ahhh, thats not correct. The Dodge EPA ratings are out and they are not 17/23. not even close.
The Dodge is only EPA-rated at 13/19 for 2WD, and 13/18 for 4WD models
09/09, 10:45 PM
posted by:
swamprat
Caldwell may be on to something.
It will be interesting to see the difference in acceleration that will show up in road tests. In the 1970’s, cars had abysmal ratings because of fuel economy and pollution control requirements.
09/09, 11:31 PM
posted by:
1c3d0g
tyler_is_aero_tt: Speak for yourself. Maybe you don’t care, but the rest of the world certainly does. Don’t assume anything.
09/10, 7:36 AM
posted by:
MercMark
1 mpg is easy to do. lets see 5 mpg!
09/10, 8:19 AM
posted by:
livelyjay
@MercMark: Great point, it is very easy to eek out 1 or 2 mpg with some tuning of the fuel maps. When I had a fuel computer in my Mazda I was able to get 2 more mpg combined out of it because the tune was really bad from the factory.
09/10, 10:27 AM
posted by:
Jazz
What makes me laugh is that folks on these boards were talking like getting more MPG out of the domestics would take many years and chassis revisions. But wait Ford did it and didn’t change the chassis.
That leads me to believe that their whole range of vehicles have been inefficient for a very long time.
09/10, 11:56 AM
posted by:
02WRXPSM
Tuning the computer a bit means actually cutting in to the safety margins and design tolerances that were present when the drivetrain was originally designed — THAT is why they haven’t done this until their backs are pushed against the wall. You WILL see shorter engine lifetimes and more reliability issues if they are just tweaking the ECU and not actually upgrading components in the motor. Many, many existing cars (including my WRX) run excessively rich while the motor is cold and tend to retard the spark when the A/C is on, also running rich. This is to prevent engine damage from microdetonation and keep the cylinder walls cooler; they are literally bathed with gasoline, which then evaporates, cooling the cylinder wall for a fraction of a second before detonation. If you start leaning out that part of the cycle, you can definitely save gas, but you also take away the safety margins for preventing detonation and lean conditions.
09/10, 12:35 PM
posted by:
swamprat
02WRX-
Maybe the detonation can be counteracted with mid-grade or premium gas.
09/10, 12:35 PM
posted by:
jimothy
JasonZ: Those numbers are for the 2008 model. The 2009 models are significantly changed, as I stated in my comments, and will more fuel efficient. By how much remains to be seen. Personally, I don’t expect to see 17/23, which would be a huge jump in efficiency, but the numbers will be higher than 13/19. Dodge has assured the automotive press of that.
09/10, 2:10 PM
posted by:
jimothy
JasonZ: The new EPA figures are out, and it looks like we’re both wrong. The figures are 14/20 for the 5.7L Hemi 2WD. You were correct about the 4WD figures, however.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=26068
09/10, 2:52 PM
posted by:
02WRXPSM
swamprat: that would negate the actual money savings, because premium can be up to 10% more expensive than 87.
09/10, 3:01 PM
posted by:
yarddog82abn
WOWW so my next Ford truck will get 13mpg from 12mpg i get now, let me tell you 36″ tire’s and a 6″ inch lift kit, it KILL mpg, and then when you tow a boat…. WOWWW 10mpg… Then again I can’t be crying about the price of gas if I’m playing with the big boys…
09/10, 10:29 PM
posted by:
tyler_is_aero_tt
No I care, I love ford, but it’s just that people always bash them around and don’t realize that they are improving and awesome. Mustang ‘10 all the way!