4 months of ownership...'17 Expy

[jeff kushner]

4 months, to the day....I will probably park the Expy and begin to drive my 2 seater as soon as the threat of snow disappears just so I don't burn all my warranty in the first year!


I do love this truck though! With us under a snow watch Monday night, I slid under the front end to remove the removable dam so it wouldn't get damaged by deep snow. The manual indicates several twist-loc screws but that wasn't the case. There were two 10x35mm bolts (13mm heads) & two press pins that I just snipped off since I have a case-assortment. Took two minutes. I'll put it back on this weekend when it warms a bit.


jeff

 

[B-McD]

And here I thought I was running up the miles at about 1500/month! Just drive it. It depreciates whether rolling or sitting!

 

[NevadaGeo]

Good to hear you still like the '17. I have my first K on the clock with a bit over 1 month. Really a luxurious improvement over my '12 FX4. Of all the years driving F-150s with a solid rear axel it is a pleasure to replace it with the Expedition with independent suspension. Very noticeable.

Enjoy your ride, don't let it sit. Your motorcycles will understand.

 

[jeff kushner]

I appreciate the sentiments guys but geez, I hate to "use up" my 3-36 in the first year!

There just seems to be something "wrong" with that....but it will motivate me to buy that extended warranty that I've been pushing off. I did a bunch of research when I first bought my truck so at least that part of the decision is done.

Besides, my two seater car is a SLK230 hard-top convertible (top retracts into the truck) with a couple of engine mods that is a blast to drive so once it warms up, I'll be driving that since it's been covered in the garage all winter. I have told people, that had I known how fun convertibles were to drive, I would have bought one year ago!

I still have to sell the '03 EB expy too. Someone put a note on my door asking if the untagged Expy was for sale, to please call them...maybe I'll give them a call this week.....might be the same guy that bought my '99 when he noticed there was no tag on it a few years ago. He bought my old truck and my boat...made my life easy<LOL>!!

jeff

 

[Adieu]

Huh... sure is easy to sell a truck in your area

 

[powerboatr]

cool you have within a tenth the same mpg i have

i hate those dam green lights that tell you the lights are on... i placed a peice of xray film over them to block the night time annoyance

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

I still have to sell the '03 EB expy too. Someone put a note on my door asking if the untagged Expy was for sale, to please call them...maybe I'll give them a call this week.....might be the same guy that bought my '99 when he noticed there was no tag on it a few years ago. He bought my old truck and my boat...made my life easy<LOL>!!

jeff

My salesman told me that they just sold my old 05. The guy beat them up pretty good on the price and then made them repaint the hood and the liftgate. I can't wait to find out what the final price was. I'd love to see how it turned out.

 

[jeff kushner]

cool you have within a tenth the same mpg i have

i hate those dam green lights that tell you the lights are on... i placed a peice of xray film over them to block the night time annoyance

PB,

The lights don't bother me...I just don't notice them. I remember you guys talking a while back about them and the glare from the shifter but I just never noticed any of those things.



The odometer reading that was shown in the pic is the "tank to tank" bar graph that I use it for. I reset the bar graph every tank. If I click UP once from the bar, I get to the "total since new" summary, then click UP again to get to the summary of the bar graph. The funny thing is that 1 click up to get to the "summary since new" started over yesterday.....it doesn't read above 9999!

BUT all said...my mileage since new was 17.4, exactly what the pic showed.


Andy,

I would never want to know what they sold it for but everyone's different. Hope you hear the real number.

Gas mileage:

I have used BP Gold 93 since new...every tank, all the time. I don't pay for gas so I can afford to buy premium. Tuesday morning I was running close to empty and since we had snow on the roads, I stopped and filled with Exxon and SEEM to notice a difference. My mileage when full is usually a bit higher because I'm on the highway going back and forth to work...it only lowers when running errands, usually on the weekends so that "tank to tank" graph in the pic usually would have read higher, like 17.9 or 18.1. I honestly don't know how much of it had to do with BP vs Exxon though. I partially filled it this morning(BP gold) and my "tank to tank" reading on the bar is 20.1 and it will drop from there each tank.

Also

I read recently that turning off traction control yields another mpg....so I'm going to see on this tank(refilled this morning). I'll see if it really does or not.

jeff

 

[NevadaGeo]

PB,

The lights don't bother me...I just don't notice them. I remember you guys talking a while back about them and the glare from the shifter but I just never noticed any of those things.



The odometer reading that was shown in the pic is the "tank to tank" bar graph that I use it for. I reset the bar graph every tank. If I click UP once from the bar, I get to the "total since new" summary, then click UP again to get to the summary of the bar graph. The funny thing is that 1 click up to get to the "summary since new" started over yesterday.....it doesn't read above 9999!

BUT all said...my mileage since new was 17.4, exactly what the pic showed.


Andy,

I would never want to know what they sold it for but everyone's different. Hope you hear the real number.

Gas mileage:

I have used BP Gold 93 since new...every tank, all the time. I don't pay for gas so I can afford to buy premium. Tuesday morning I was running close to empty and since we had snow on the roads, I stopped and filled with Exxon and SEEM to notice a difference. My mileage when full is usually a bit higher because I'm on the highway going back and forth to work...it only lowers when running errands, usually on the weekends so that "tank to tank" graph in the pic usually would have read higher, like 17.9 or 18.1. I honestly don't know how much of it had to do with BP vs Exxon though. I partially filled it this morning(BP gold) and my "tank to tank" reading on the bar is 20.1 and it will drop from there each tank.

Also

I read recently that turning off traction control yields another mpg....so I'm going to see on this tank(refilled this morning). I'll see if it really does or not.

jeff

View attachment 19722[/QUOTE
I have begun using the higher octane gas each fill up. Out here at the higher altitudes, our highest choice at the pump is 91, since anything higher doesn't get enough oxygen to be of any use. There is definitely a difference in performance and MPG using the higher oct fuels with the TT engine. These engines are direct injected and have a compression ration of 10:1.

What would the compression ration of the 5.4 triton be?

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

What would the compression ration of the 5.4 triton be?

The 05 owners manual said that the three valve engine has a 9.85 : 1 compression ratio.

 

[NevadaGeo]

Thanks Andy. So the injection port above the intake valve in the Triton engine as opposed to the injection directly into the combustion chamber in the TT is what makes a higher quality fuel more effective? Or is it just the fact that the turbos are forcing compressed air into the combustion? No big deal and definitely off topic, but just curious.

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

Thanks Andy. So the injection port above the intake valve in the Triton engine as opposed to the injection directly into the combustion chamber in the TT is what makes a higher quality fuel more effective? Or is it just the fact that the turbos are forcing compressed air into the combustion? No big deal and definitely off topic, but just curious.

That's something that I have to research I want to know more about it too. I want to figure out how putting premium fuel in the engine makes it get better mileage. At this point, I'm still trying to decide if I want to run a higher grade than regular. I let my tank get down to 1/2 and then I filled up with regular again. I still haven't run a full tank through it yet. I think I'm still under 300 miles on the clock.

 

[NevadaGeo]

I have done a few road trips (living where I do, I drive to Reno and Salt Lake City from Spring Creek often) and have experimented with both 87 and 91 octane fuels. The 91 give me better mileage from what I can gather at this point. Maybe it is my imagination, but seems to preform better with peddle to the metal acceleration as well. But time will tell. The OM states clearly the engine performance is enhanced with the higher octane mix.

Spring Creek is mile high elevation, so the computer adjusts the mixture to account for the lack of oxygen. That is why no fuel over 91 is offered here. Californians don't adjust as well...

 

[NevadaGeo]

Here is a good write up on the 3.5 TT. Good info.

https://www.full-race.com/articles/what-is-ecoboost.html

 

[jeff kushner]

I have done a few road trips (living where I do, I drive to Reno and Salt Lake City from Spring Creek often) and have experimented with both 87 and 91 octane fuels. The 91 give me better mileage from what I can gather at this point. Maybe it is my imagination, but seems to preform better with peddle to the metal acceleration as well. But time will tell. The OM states clearly the engine performance is enhanced with the higher octane mix.

Spring Creek is mile high elevation, so the computer adjusts the mixture to account for the lack of oxygen. That is why no fuel over 91 is offered here. Californians don't adjust as well...

Not your imagination Nev:

Higher octane fuel burns slower than lower octane....but it's deceiving since octane is nothing more than a measurement of resistance to detonation. When higher octane fuel is used in a computerized system, more ignition advance can be employed because it burns slower, hence the increased power/mileage....but in reality, it's not THAT much of a difference. I only buy 93 because I do not pay for gas....one advantage of doing my type of work.

Also, remember last week I told you guys that I'd heard that mileage goes up 1 mpg with traction control turned off? My last tank ended with 18.6MPG! About a full point higher than normal by the end of a tank!

I just filled again this morning and am continuing the "experiment"....it's hard to remember to turn it off each time I start the truck though. It automatically re-engages each start so I have to remember to manually turn it off each time.

jeff

 

[jeff kushner]

Here is a good write up on the 3.5 TT. Good info.

https://www.full-race.com/articles/what-is-ecoboost.html

In the article is this paragraph:

To ensure the highest quality, most reliable engines, Ford engineers studied the warranty history of the outgoing engines and developed testing procedures based on the real-world driving experiences from current F-150 drivers. Big power is great for bragging rights but Ford needed to prove EcoBoost engines were up to the task, long-term, before truck enthusiasts would embrace this new power plant. Engine validation consisted of 1.5-million hours of computer analysis, 13,000 hours of engine dyno testing with 5000 hours at full boost and 2500 of those hours at 5000+ rpm. Finally, 100,000 hours of vehicle testing was logged as engineers devised tests that pushed these engines harder and longer than any customer, in any climate, could ever possibly do. Prototype EcoBoost engines underwent a wide range of tests with all components undergoing testing equivalent of 150,000 miles.


Last Fall when I read basically the same info in a different article,(like this, it was the one that talked about them racing the engines in the trucks at the track then using the same engine to haul logs somewhere before disassembling them and checking for wear but it acknowledged a drop in #4 I think of 12PSI due to the valves)..... something in the article didn't quite click....remember that I build vintage motorcycle engines so sometime I might see something that others might not.

Finally, I looked at the claims of 13,000 dyno testing....a dyno run for 13,000 hours even at a mere 60MPH would total 780,000 miles, far more miles then the 150K claimed.

Something about that doesn't ring true. Was it really 1300 hours of dyno testing? I have no idea but I had read that they used 4 to 6 prototype engines...and I do realize that they are talking about the accumulated accrued mileage of the group....doesn't really matter since I bought one, but I'd be curious to know the facts behind their "destructive testing".

jeff

 

[ExpeditionAndy]

Jeff i used to work for York Heating and Air Condition in York PA and then in Norman OK (once we moved our division headquarters out there) We would run failure testing and we would have multiple units in testing at the same time. 1,300 hours really wouldn't a very long time on an engine and you really can't equate hours to miles. I think the 150,000 miles actually refers to vehicles that they drove for 150,000 miles or that they put on a dyno and ran them continuously. Just my thoughts.

 

[LokiWolf]

Thanks Andy. So the injection port above the intake valve in the Triton engine as opposed to the injection directly into the combustion chamber in the TT is what makes a higher quality fuel more effective? Or is it just the fact that the turbos are forcing compressed air into the combustion? No big deal and definitely off topic, but just curious.

Higher Octane fuel, while it contains less energy, allows more aggressive mapping, or basically timing advance. That equates to more power.

Sorry, good replies above! My client didn't update to show them. Sorry about the redundancy.

 

[powerboatr]

let me add some soup to the bowl.
We have used 91 octane at each fill up since new, except for maybe one or two tank fulls.

reasoning is most of my driving is High speed (70 or higher, mostly higher).
second is the summers are freaking hot and i demand alot from my vehicles, cold as snow a/c and no hiccups.
whether the 91 gets me better mpg over 87 is anyone guess.
I will say i have done a few fill-ups with NO ethanol 91 octane. YES in short order its a different feeling, but this fuel is pricey, nearly 75 cents more per gallon than 91 octane that may contain some ethanol (10%).

i see on here at least one other person after a year are within .1 of my lifetime mileage of 17.3.

and that is in 2wd or 4auto mode. I have found no mpg decrease when having the auto 4wd system in auto, just makes more noise up front. But in rainy or potential reduced traction on roads, i use the 4wd auto setting.

traction control, you can turn it off, but somewhere over 35 mph its back on and cannot be kept turned off, despite the settings in the menu. should get a flashing light to let you know its back on, but i cant remember the mph settings. that is unless your in 4wd High mode, which is not suitable for dry pavement operations.
4wd auto may be used on all surfaces, but not recommended in mud, snow or low traction conditions

 

[07xln]

Guys the computer in these trucks isn't going to adjust its mapping for the octane of fuel you're using. The only thing that comes into play is the knock sensor. If you get some knock from a lower grade fuel it will pull timing. If you put in higher octane fuel and there is no knock then it will resort to its original tune until it experiences knock. The ecu isn't going to advance the timing just because you filled up with a tank of 93. You have to get aftermarket tuning to take advantage of things like that. That why all the 3rd party tuning places have tow tunes and 91/93 octane tunes etc. Ford even advertises its direct injection is able to burn lower octane fuel to get the most mpgs and fuel savings.

I run 89 in mine so I'm right in the sweet spot. Dallas to Branson and back last week with the family for spring break and averaged 17.8 mpg with and average mph of 72. I'll take it