mpg improved after switched to Eco mode

[stlgrym3]

it went from 20 mpg to 23 mpg since we made the switch. same driving pattern. anyone else noticed this?

Sponsored

 

[Davexxxx]

We just got 22 mpg on the first 400 odd miles in normal mode.

Plan on trying eco for the rest of the tank.

 

[amschind]

I honestly cannot see any difference between regular and eco, BUT I have 1) (stock sized) AT tires 2) mostly drive on the highway 3) have tow mirros and huge combined grillguard/bumper and 4) baby the throttle anyway. Fuel efficiency on the PB is highly situation and highly non-linear because of the massive drag coefficient and relatively weak electric motor. The PB has the shortest gearing available for the sake of efficiency because the truck would rarely go all-electric with a 3.55 (i.e. the opposite of the tall gearing that is normally used for higher efficiency). Because all-electric mode boosts MPG so much AND the electric motor is undersized, anything which increases rotating mass will DRAMATICALLY reduce efficiency.

A 2.3L I4 coupled with the 100HP motor from the Aviator hybrid and a 3.55 rear would've yielded markedly better MPG with more or less the same peak power figures as the stock 3.5L. Even better would be a series hybrid lightning with a "big range extender" advanced cycle ICE. As it stands, the PB cannot really add to efficiency unless you commit to very light P rated tires and ideally regular side mirrors. You might be able to increase that with lighter than stock flow-formed wheels, which would further reduce weight.

I have considered a set of touring tires AND a set of mud terrains, but the issue is that while the money is probably a wash over 100k miles, I wouldn't have a chance to switch back and forth. Thus, like a lot of folks who have 99% on-road 1% off-road trucks, my best compromise is AT tires. The issues is that the PB greatly penalizes that decision in terms of mileage, regardless of driving mode.

You can get about 1-1.5extra MPG with 93 octane, but it costs more per mile vs 87. For highway driving, speed matters as does "drafting". I set my ACC at 1 bar and get behind a truck with a big boxy trailer, which when combined with their generally lower speed, yields a decent increase in MPG. I managed 12.3 MPG sustained at 75 MPH with a headwind the other night, and 22 MPG later on at 67 MPH behind a truck.

 

[Davexxxx]

Fuel efficiency on the PB is highly situation and highly non-linear because of the massive drag coefficient and relatively weak electric motor. The PB has the shortest gearing available for the sake of efficiency because the truck would rarely go all-electric with a 3.55

This reminded me of something I wanted to mention.

I'd seen people ask what the highest MPH of electric only driving is, on the PB. I've seen vids of it being in the 50s but on the trip home from Granger yesterday, I saw it kick in, in the 60s, twice.

Once was from the adaptive cruise slowing from 65, to 60. The other was out of the blue, going down a modest slope at 67. A tail wind might have helped. Can't say.

The first lasted a decent amount of time. The other, maybe a minute.

This was in normal mode.

 

[amschind]

This reminded me of something I wanted to mention.

I'd seen people ask what the highest MPH of electric only driving is, on the PB. I've seen vids of it being in the 50s but on the trip home from Granger yesterday, I saw it kick in, in the 60s, twice.

Once was from the adaptive cruise slowing from 65, to 60. The other was out of the blue, going down a modest slope at 67. A tail wind might have helped. Can't say.

The first lasted a decent amount of time. The other, maybe a minute.

This was in normal mode.

This has been my experience as well. My unfounded belief is that "eco" mode just applies a <1 coefficient to pedal commanded acceleration. By that I mean that if pedal at 50% in "normal mode" commands acceleration X, pedal at 50% in "eco mode" commands acceleration 0.8X. For a leadfoot that probably helps mileage, but if you're driving gently regardless there should be minimal difference between the modes except for how far you're pushing your foot down to get up to speed.

 

[nrmedic]

I have utilized both. Ecomode only helps in the city and the mpg difference is slightly better, but not traffic friendly.

My PB will go all electric in the mid 60's on flat roads.

I too wanted an AT tire, so I went with the 285/65R18 SL rated Falken AT3W. At 38lbs, they're the same weight as the factory GY junk.

Speed, towing, and terrain are the determining factors on MPG. I have no problem maintaining 23-25mpg under 75mph on relatively flat NC highways. Regular roads, I can easily hit 30mpg. A majority of my driving is stop and go in the city, that goes to straight highway at 65mph+. After 5,400+ miles, my average is 23.6mpg hand calculated.

 

[dmac]

I honestly cannot see any difference between regular and eco, BUT I have 1) (stock sized) AT tires 2) mostly drive on the highway 3) have tow mirros and huge combined grillguard/bumper and 4) baby the throttle anyway. Fuel efficiency on the PB is highly situation and highly non-linear because of the massive drag coefficient and relatively weak electric motor. The PB has the shortest gearing available for the sake of efficiency because the truck would rarely go all-electric with a 3.55 (i.e. the opposite of the tall gearing that is normally used for higher efficiency). Because all-electric mode boosts MPG so much AND the electric motor is undersized, anything which increases rotating mass will DRAMATICALLY reduce efficiency.

A 2.3L I4 coupled with the 100HP motor from the Aviator hybrid and a 3.55 rear would've yielded markedly better MPG with more or less the same peak power figures as the stock 3.5L. Even better would be a series hybrid lightning with a "big range extender" advanced cycle ICE. As it stands, the PB cannot really add to efficiency unless you commit to very light P rated tires and ideally regular side mirrors. You might be able to increase that with lighter than stock flow-formed wheels, which would further reduce weight.

I have considered a set of touring tires AND a set of mud terrains, but the issue is that while the money is probably a wash over 100k miles, I wouldn't have a chance to switch back and forth. Thus, like a lot of folks who have 99% on-road 1% off-road trucks, my best compromise is AT tires. The issues is that the PB greatly penalizes that decision in terms of mileage, regardless of driving mode.

You can get about 1-1.5extra MPG with 93 octane, but it costs more per mile vs 87. For highway driving, speed matters as does "drafting". I set my ACC at 1 bar and get behind a truck with a big boxy trailer, which when combined with their generally lower speed, yields a decent increase in MPG. I managed 12.3 MPG sustained at 75 MPH with a headwind the other night, and 22 MPG later on at 67 MPH behind a truck.

Yeah I sort of agree. In the city a smaller displacement motor def could help with warmup times and idle efficiency. However on the highway, once you get into boost, its kind of game over efficiency wise. See the bronco 2.3 forums. I'd love to see an Atkinson cycle v6 with the cylinder deactivation from the 5.0 assuming it proves reliable.

Or just the 5.0 lol. It is more efficient under load than the ecoboost, but not as ideal at low power conditions.

 

[amschind]

The appeal of the turbo isn't so much extra power as it is harnessing exhaust energy. I'd be just as happy with an NA Atkinson cycle engine whose turbo spun an alternator. The long power stroke from the Atkinson adaptation to conventional Otto cycle engines is maybe better exemplified by the opposed piston engines. I REALLY like the stuff that Achates Power is doing, but the thing that excites me the most is that every once in a while one of their principals or engineers will mention the Napier Deltic.

I think that a Deltic turbocompound with some variant of BMW's old "Turbosteamer" as a bottoming cycle would approach the practical efficiency limit for an internal combustion engine, or at least match the new 61-62% GE combined cycle nat gas plants (especially when line losses were considered). Further, I think that could fit into a vehicle in terms of mass and volume.

If a prime mover in a vehicle matches the efficiency of a big powerplant, how does that change transportation?

 

[WD8CXB]

I have seen about a 3 MPG increase from 16mpg to 19mpg mixed city/highway driving in my EcoBoost 3.5L. I wish I could keep it in Eco Mode every time I drive it and not need to remember to hit the OK but or use the selector switch. It also keeps me out of trouble because it does change the acceleration of the truck.

 

[dmac]

The appeal of the turbo isn't so much extra power as it is harnessing exhaust energy. I'd be just as happy with an NA Atkinson cycle engine whose turbo spun an alternator. The long power stroke from the Atkinson adaptation to conventional Otto cycle engines is maybe better exemplified by the opposed piston engines. I REALLY like the stuff that Achates Power is doing, but the thing that excites me the most is that every once in a while one of their principals or engineers will mention the Napier Deltic.

I think that a Deltic turbocompound with some variant of BMW's old "Turbosteamer" as a bottoming cycle would approach the practical efficiency limit for an internal combustion engine, or at least match the new 61-62% GE combined cycle nat gas plants (especially when line losses were considered). Further, I think that could fit into a vehicle in terms of mass and volume.

If a prime mover in a vehicle matches the efficiency of a big powerplant, how does that change transportation?

I think we are geeking out beyond what most forum viewers will want but you're speaking my language.

Amazing what German bomber prototypes could do with opposed piston engines almost 100 years ago. We kicked their ***es luckily.

There is a ton of headroom to combine opposed piston engines with series hybrids, but will we see investment? Not sure, since everyone wants EVs now and they're awesome too.

 

[thebigdu]

I think we are geeking out beyond what most forum viewers will want but you're speaking my language.

This. I have a BSME degree from a respectable school but never took any courses in ICE and haven't really maintained my engine knowledge over the past ~15 years, and this thread definitely has me like...

 

[Suns_PSD]

I was running Sport most of the time before and am now playing with Eco and it's a solid 2.5 - 3 mpg better economy in Eco.

I have now just gotten in the habit of playing with the knob to suit my needs so I never have the max power nor the max mpg by the end of the tank.

 

[artman]

Hello,
A have to give thanks out to another blogger, who posted the Eco Mode.
Since testing that blog suggestion, I am now getting over 25 mpg. I live in SoCal and live in a hill and sloped road.
But… outside of my 2 mile radius, the mpg was greatly increased. Another note was a blogger’s comment of tapping the brake pedal twice to force the electric driving into action.
The dealers don’t have a clue for us hybrid owners.

I had nine moths of hell and then the dealership had to fly in a Hybrid Specislist. He had to “tune” up the synchronization between electric and combustion engine.

My Hybrid still has minor issues but I am learning my truck.

 

[JerryLZ]

I like eco mode since it cuts down the on the acceleration and i can stay in electric mode longer. normal mode is a little too jumpy when trying to hover in electric.

So I drive in eco pretty much all the time. I put those miles in a mental piggy bank and every now and then I treat myself in sport mode. Its a good system.

 

[cheesedogf150]

I only use eco mode when doing adaptive cruise drives. Being in eco smooths out the harsh starts that happen in normal mode. Speed up and slowing down seems more gradual and natural in eco when the truck is doing all the work without me.

For regular driving eco yields marginal if any at all benefit to me, too numb feeling for my linking. Normal seems to be the best balance.

Sponsored