Expedition EL vs Suburban No chevy or ford bashing please.

Diamondpilot · Jul 8, 2012

yelbike said:
Well I did our first real trip with the expedition last week, about 250 miles round trip. I reset the onboard computer during the trip and I got up to 19 MPG around doing approximately 70mph most of the trip. By the time we got home I did around 17 MPG with a little combined city driving at our destination. I was pleased with the results.

Well this weekend, same destination, but we brought our travel trailer(3300lbs dry,so 4000lbs loaded at most). MPG was around 12 and falling doing 60-65 MPH. I pulled over to check if something was wrong. I even disconnected my brake controller in case it was dragging the brakes(I really didn't think it was!). No difference. I made it home and I was down to about 8.9 MPG. Very dissappointed. I guess its not a great towing vehicle. I'd hate to see the the mpg with a full 9000lbs trailer which is what its rated for.:confused3:

My father had 2 Expeditions and my sister has one right now. With a box trailer its 9 mpg machine. About the same as the 6 F-150 trucks I have had.

My Co-Pilot has a Yukon XL, same thing as a Suburban. He has a 7,000# travel trailer and it does 8.3 mpg, same as the Ford.

Like Dmace and others said, its not the weight, its the design of the camper/box trailer.

Chris

jeffsw6 · Jul 8, 2012

yelbike said:
I made it home and I was down to about 8.9 MPG. Very dissappointed. I guess its not a great towing vehicle. I'd hate to see the the mpg with a full 9000lbs trailer which is what its rated for.:confused3:

Nothing unusual there. I get about 12 MPG with my 6x12 enclosed cargo trailer and 05 Suburban. If I am lucky, 8 MPG with the 8.5x20 extra-height box trailer. These things have a lot of wind drag.

What vehicle did you use before the Expedition EL that got better than 9 MPG with your TT?

Diamondpilot · Jul 8, 2012

Long story short, this is what these trucks get pulling any box load. Do the math, its not the end of the world. Fuel is about $3.50 per gallon right now and your 250 mile trip at 9 mpg (8.9 actually but lets keep the math simple) cost you about $97. If it were to get 12 mpg it would have cost you $73, or $24 less. Even on a 2,000 mile trip to say FL and back it would @ 9mpg it would cost you about $775 in fuel and @ 12 mpg it would cost you about $600. Not enough to keep most people from canceling a trip.

You could buy a new Diesel or Eco Boost and maybe get that but not much better. My neighbor has a 2007 Dmax and had a 26' 7,000# BP camper and got 13mpg on a 5,000 mile trip. He then traded up to 35' 5th wheel that weighs 13,000# and he gets 11mpg. So he about doubled the weight but only lost about 15% in mpg.

Chris

yelbike · Jul 8, 2012

jeffsw6 said:
Nothing unusual there. I get about 12 MPG with my 6x12 enclosed cargo trailer and 05 Suburban. If I am lucky, 8 MPG with the 8.5x20 extra-height box trailer. These things have a lot of wind drag.

What vehicle did you use before the Expedition EL that got better than 9 MPG with your TT?

I had a 2003 4.8l Tahoe but did except much better as it was the smallest of the available engines.

yelbike · Jul 8, 2012

Diamondpilot said:
Long story short, this is what these trucks get pulling any box load. Do the math, its not the end of the world. Fuel is about $3.50 per gallon right now and your 250 mile trip at 9 mpg (8.9 actually but lets keep the math simple) cost you about $97. If it were to get 12 mpg it would have cost you $73, or $24 less. Even on a 2,000 mile trip to say FL and back it would @ 9mpg it would cost you about $775 in fuel and @ 12 mpg it would cost you about $600. Not enough to keep most people from canceling a trip.

You could buy a new Diesel or Eco Boost and maybe get that but not much better. My neighbor has a 2007 Dmax and had a 26' 7,000# BP camper and got 13mpg on a 5,000 mile trip. He then traded up to 35' 5th wheel that weighs 13,000# and he gets 11mpg. So he about doubled the weight but only lost about 15% in mpg.

Chris

Good point. Better perceptive. Still a little disappointed. I'd hate to tow 8000-9000 lbs trailer with it, 5-6mpg?? Diesel is not an option as I need the seats. Still love the truck!!

zlock24 · Jul 9, 2012

yelbike said:
Good point. Better perceptive. Still a little disappointed. I'd hate to tow 8000-9000 lbs trailer with it, 5-6mpg?? Diesel is not an option as I need the seats. Still love the truck!!

I just finished a trip from the very top of west Virginia to the very bottom, about a 300 mile trip with my 07 expedition el hauling 8,000 pounds worth of tractor and trailer at a speed of 70 mph and still got between 10- 11mpg hand calculated. That includes the mountainous wv turnpike. So as said before, it's more about the shape of the trailer, not the weight

yelbike · Jul 9, 2012

zlock24 said:
I just finished a trip from the very top of west Virginia to the very bottom, about a 300 mile trip with my 07 expedition el hauling 8,000 pounds worth of tractor and trailer at a speed of 70 mph and still got between 10- 11mpg hand calculated. That includes the mountainous wv turnpike. So as said before, it's more about the shape of the trailer, not the weight

I'm starting to see the common link.
Curious was there a difference between the hand calc and the on board computer?

jeffsw6 · Jul 9, 2012

yelbike said:
Good point. Better perceptive. Still a little disappointed. I'd hate to tow 8000-9000 lbs trailer with it, 5-6mpg?? Diesel is not an option as I need the seats. Still love the truck!!

It's more about the frontal area / shape of the trailer, than about how much it weighs. I get 7 or 8 MPG (highway) with my 8.5x20 tall box trailer whether it is empty or loaded. It is about 3600# empty and usually 7000# loaded. When I am doing city driving, the weight is a bigger factor, because of frequent stops at traffic lights and then accelerating to 30 MPH from a dead stop just to get to the next red light. I have seen as bad as 4 MPG towing it in the city!

The thing about this one is, the box is 7'6" tall and 8'6" wide. Imagine trying to hold a piece of plywood up-right against a 30 MPH or 60 MPH wind -- there is no way you could do it! Your truck can push that much air out of its way to tow your trailer, but it uses up a lot of fuel.

jeffsw6 · Jul 9, 2012

The difference between "hand calculation" and on-board computer is this:

* how full did the fuel tank really get at the last fill-up, and the current one? We all know the pump sometimes shuts off and then you can manage to get an extra gallon in the tank by pumping less quickly. Some pumps are more sensitive than others. Sometimes you will take the time to get it super full, sometimes you won't.

* how accurate is the truck's system of measuring fuel consumption? Mine is basically always within 5% of what the gas pump says.

* how accurate is the gasoline pump at the filling station? The standard for gas station pump accuracy is often +/- 0.5% to 1%. Usually this is enforced by the county. A pump may not be inspected for years at a time because of government staffing cuts. According to Cincinnati, Ohio officials, about 2% of gas pumps in their area fail their regular inspections and have to be repaired. In Virginia, however, 10% of the pumps typically fail their inspections!

Whether you let the car's computer do it, or figure your MPG by hand, both of these are subject to errors due to tire wear; and your driving habits probably won't be exactly the same from one tank to the next. Maybe you use the air conditioning more one week or let your truck idle to warm up in the morning when it is particularly cold.

You're not going to get a perfect result. +/- 5% is probably a good way to look at every MPG figure you see, IMO.