[AlpharettaRK]

hotrodlincoln, on Aug 16 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

I have a front drive ultimate with Radar cruise. 16K I am averageing 19.7. I did take road trip of 150 miles and get 28.5 averaging about 73 and that included hills and some stop and go thru small towns. I also run on 87 octane

I have a year-old AWD Ultimate. I get about 16.5 MPG in mostly suburban commute traffic. I must have a heavy foot, as I never get anywhere near the rating on any car. I don't even feel like I drive it that hard. Based on everybody else's results, though it must be me.

[Madlock]

Today, I just drove the MKS to D.C. and back, a 450-mile round trip; and I was VERY pleasantly surprised at the mileage given the extra AWD weight.

Even with crawing through Philadelphia on I-95 for almost 90 minutes and otherwise maintaining a cruise speed of 75-85, I achieved 23.9 MPG on the way to D.C and 24.7 on the way back. These were miles 1,050-1,500 on the vehicle with a switch-over to Mobil 1 having taken place at 500 miles.

For a 2 1/2 ton behemoth, that's downright fuel thrifty!

[DraKhen99]

I've got just over 3,500 miles on my MKS FWD so far, and I leave the auto climate control on about 95% of the time. I average about 18.5, with 90-95% city driving. My morning commute sucks though, and is 10-13 miles of mostly stop-and-go (takes 30-45 minutes, each way). I took the MKS on a road trip from the Washington, DC area to Virginia Beach, and I got somewhere north of 24-25 MPG (spent some time idling and driving around an outlet mall while waiting for my girlfriend). Not too shabby for a 4,200 lb car!

A side note: A friend of mine has a 2006 Scion tC, and he was getting 14.5 MPG with that little 4-banger! We ran some BG 44k fuel system cleaner through his car, and now he gets 22-23 MPG ... not much more than my MKS

-John

[sherm]

MKSFAN, on Jul 29 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

We are averaging around 19mpg with ours and we have a pretty good mix of highway and city driving. Don't know on the premium, we only run regular unleaded in ours.

I am also getting around 19 mies per gallon. Also the car is meant to run on regular so it would be a waste of money to buy higher grade. always put in what the manufacter says if you are having problems with milage complaine to the dealer as long as you are driving like you are suppose to

This post has been edited by sherm: 01 October 2009 - 01:01 PM

[DraKhen99]

sherm, on Oct 1 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

I am also getting around 19 mies per gallon. Also the car is meant to run on regular so it would be a waste of money to buy higher grade. always put in what the manufacter says if you are having problems with milage complaine to the dealer as long as you are driving like you are suppose to

Actually, if you read the manual, it states that the car is tuned to run on Regular OR Premium. There is a slight performance increase if you fill up with premium.

-John

[Madlock]

DraKhen99, on Oct 1 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

Actually, if you read the manual, it states that the car is tuned to run on Regular OR Premium. There is a slight performance increase if you fill up with premium.

-John

And the difference is a paltry 2 hp, so unless anyone happens to have a preference for any of the additives a particular brand dumps in at the terminal, running premium gas in the MKS is all about psychological, rather than actual, benefit.

P.S. My mileage was also with 2 occupants and 100% dual zone climate conflicting to its maximum (mine set at 60, my wife's at 75).

Ford really has NOT communicated the message about how amazing the MKS' relative fuel economy happens to be even with the base 6 and AWD, something made even more remarkable by the M1A1-like mass it hauls around. To hit the EPA estimates, not just under controlled circumstances (like downhill and with a tailwind) but to peg them with additional "real world" considerations like 1 hour of crawling traffic and perpetual A/C just goes to show the fundamental nature of the quality improvements that Ford is letting speak for itself.

And not that I'd ever advocate substituting marketing "hype" over actual accomplishment, but I'd sure like to see Ford's vehicles enjoy the kind of marketing support they truly deserve. They continue to make the absolute right decision by building vehicles that turn people into brand evangelists, but the "message" can only go so far until they reach the segment of the market that requires their information served to them on a plate. As a taxpayer, I'd have absolutely no qualms about the government handing Ford a $1B honorarium in recognition for their self-sustained existence and renaissance if it meant Ford spending each of those dollars on getting backsides into seats.

That 3.7 L V6 is a gem. I'm off to spend 1/2 hour "walking the lot" at a local Toyota dealer and discourage their potential customers in favor of Ford.

[DraKhen99]

Madlock, on Oct 1 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

And the difference is a paltry 2 hp, so unless anyone happens to have a preference for any of the additives a particular brand dumps in at the terminal, running premium gas in the MKS is all about psychological, rather than actual, benefit.

P.S. My mileage was also with 2 occupants and 100% dual zone climate conflicting to its maximum (mine set at 60, my wife's at 75).

Ford really has NOT communicated the message about how amazing the MKS' relative fuel economy happens to be even with the base 6 and AWD, something made even more remarkable by the M1A1-like mass it hauls around. To hit the EPA estimates, not just under controlled circumstances (like downhill and with a tailwind) but to peg them with additional "real world" considerations like 1 hour of crawling traffic and perpetual A/C just goes to show the fundamental nature of the quality improvements that Ford is letting speak for itself.

And not that I'd ever advocate substituting marketing "hype" over actual accomplishment, but I'd sure like to see Ford's vehicles enjoy the kind of marketing support they truly deserve. They continue to make the absolute right decision by building vehicles that turn people into brand evangelists, but the "message" can only go so far until they reach the segment of the market that requires their information served to them on a plate. As a taxpayer, I'd have absolutely no qualms about the government handing Ford a $1B honorarium in recognition for their self-sustained existence and renaissance if it meant Ford spending each of those dollars on getting backsides into seats.

That 3.7 L V6 is a gem. I'm off to spend 1/2 hour "walking the lot" at a local Toyota dealer and discourage their potential customers in favor of Ford.

I did say it was a slight increase I liked how it ran on premium when I bought it (the dealer put premium in it for me), so I continue to fill her up with the good stuff.

Also, the torque goes up by 6, from 270 to 276, from what I read, which should be noticeable on a car of this heft.

John
John

[TuxedoBlackMKS]

Madlock, on Oct 1 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

Even with crawing through Philadelphia on I-95 for almost 90 minutes and otherwise maintaining a cruise speed of 75-85, I achieved 23.9 MPG on the way to D.C and 24.7 on the way back. These were miles 1,050-1,500 on the vehicle with a switch-over to Mobil 1 having taken place at 500 miles.

For a 2 1/2 ton behemoth, that's downright fuel thrifty!

Welcome to my neighborhood. The ecoboost would be a waste of money in this area because there is no place to open it up, except late at night, and that's when the cops and deer are out all over the place.

My 2009 order guide lists the curb weight of the AWD at 4305 pounds. 24.7 MPG in a car this heavy is very good, especially at those speeds and with the creepy crawling around Philly.

[brucelinc]

We took our MKS ecoboost on its first road trip this weekend - from Minneapolis to Southern Iowa.

Interstate 35 from Minneapolis to Des Moines is relatively flat and the ideal drive upon which to get good mileage. I have made the trip many times with different vehicles and nearly always exceed the EPA highway rating. The MKS ecoboost got 25.8 on the trip down and 25.3 on the return when I was driving a bit more aggressively. This was based on resetting the mileage calculator when pulling on the Interstate, crusing at around 75 MPH and driving the 200 miles. We made several other little trips on 2 lane highways around Southern Iowa and at the lower 55-60 MPH pace, it would maintain mileage in the 28-29 MPG range over a 10-15 mile trip. Obviously, lower cruising speeds provide better mileage.

No one should get the ecoboost MKS and expect dramatically better mileage than the base 3.7. If the real world highway mileage is a bit better, it is really due to the 2.77 gearing vs. 3.39 in the AWD 3.7. At 75 MPH, the engine is only turning around 1850 RPM. At 60, it is only around 1500. Since the ecoboost is in its maximum torque range at those speeds, it has excellent acceleration and throttle response without needing a downshift. I do appreciate the relaxed cruising and part throttle response of the ecoboost. For those so inclined, (like me once in a while) full throttle acceleration is ferocious. Using that capability often would kill fuel economy in a hurry, no doubt.

The car only has 1400 miles on in now and I would expect the mileage to pick up a bit when fully broken in.

[JAZMKS]

As a recent MKS owner, I would like to see any updates to fuel economy. I know this thread is being dug up, but an update would be informational.

Personally, I had been seeing 16.7 in the city and just got 18.3 highway. I see others experiencing a mgp greater than this. Highway speed was ~70-85. Anyone else with similar mpg?

[tgara]

JAZMKS, on Feb 8 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

As a recent MKS owner, I would like to see any updates to fuel economy. I know this thread is being dug up, but an update would be informational.

Personally, I had been seeing 16.7 in the city and just got 18.3 highway. I see others experiencing a mgp greater than this. Highway speed was ~70-85. Anyone else with similar mpg?

Mine is a little better, about 18.5 in the city and 22-23 on the highway. I'm running regular fuel on an 09 MKS AWD with the 19 inch tires.

Keep in mind, fuel economy numbers are affected by a variety of factors, including driving habits, weather conditions, tire condition, type of fuel (which varies in different places in the country), etc.

[JAZMKS]

tgara, on Feb 9 2010, 08:19 AM, said:

Mine is a little better, about 18.5 in the city and 22-23 on the highway. I'm running regular fuel on an 09 MKS AWD with the 19 inch tires.

Keep in mind, fuel economy numbers are affected by a variety of factors, including driving habits, weather conditions, tire condition, type of fuel (which varies in different places in the country), etc.

I agree a number a factors play in part for gas mileage but I feel I should be getting better than 16 city. Heck, in my 03 Mach 1 I get 18 city.

I guess I'll give it some more time but I definately think this 3.7 6 should do better than my 4.6 8. Lol.

Are you guys calculating mileage by what the car reads or by resetting trip and dividing by gallons pumped in the car?

[tgara]

JAZMKS, on Feb 9 2010, 12:19 PM, said:

I agree a number a factors play in part for gas mileage but I feel I should be getting better than 16 city. Heck, in my 03 Mach 1 I get 18 city.

I guess I'll give it some more time but I definately think this 3.7 6 should do better than my 4.6 8. Lol.

Are you guys calculating mileage by what the car reads or by resetting trip and dividing by gallons pumped in the car?

I was just going by what the message center says.

I seem to remember it took about 3 months before my car got decent mileage. It's hard to tell since here in CT they vary the gas blends by season and add up to 10% ethanol so the mileage is not so good.

[MKSP]

tgara, on Feb 10 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

I was just going by what the message center says.

I seem to remember it took about 3 months before my car got decent mileage. It's hard to tell since here in CT they vary the gas blends by season and add up to 10% ethanol so the mileage is not so good.

My average has been 12L/100km or 20mpg, based on the message center, and about a 60%/40% highway to city driving. I did do an actual fuel usage check over 3 fill ups and found that the message center was fairly accurate. I have seen highway peaks of 30-34mpg but for short durations (3-4 miles) and can usually hit 25-27 on highway if there is no traffic and minimal hills at about 65mph.

[Waldo]

JAZMKS, on Feb 9 2010, 12:19 PM, said:

I agree a number a factors play in part for gas mileage but I feel I should be getting better than 16 city. Heck, in my 03 Mach 1 I get 18 city.

I guess I'll give it some more time but I definately think this 3.7 6 should do better than my 4.6 8. Lol.

But your MKS weighs over 1000lbs more than the Mustang. Even if the engine's were identical, the weight alone would knock off more than 2mpg.

[JAZMKS]

Waldo, on Feb 11 2010, 07:28 AM, said:

But your MKS weighs over 1000lbs more than the Mustang. Even if the engine's were identical, the weight alone would knock off more than 2mpg.

Very true. That is a good point. But my Mach on the scale was 3665 with less than 1/4 of a tank.

But you are right that. I guess I under estimate the weight ecause it doesn't feel like a big heavy vehicle. Recently though, my mpg has gone up to 18.3 scrictly city. So that's an improvement. I guess I'll be a little more patient.

[JAZMKS]

JAZMKS, on Feb 11 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

Very true. That is a good point. But my Mach on the scale was 3665 with less than 1/4 of a tank.

But you are right that. I guess I under estimate the weight ecause it doesn't feel like a big heavy vehicle. Recently though, my mpg has gone up to 18.3 scrictly city. So that's an improvement. I guess I'll be a little more patient.

ok, here's an update. Now in the city, I have been getting low 19 mpg. 19.2-19.4 which is a great improvement. On the highway, I have gotten 23.9-24.3. So it definately has improved. Could just be that I learned how to drive the car better or just that the engine got broken in. Either way it's. Great improvement. Better than our previous car. We has an IS300, great little car but mpg were around 18. So if this huge Lincoln can do better, I'm satisfied.

[tgara]

Jaz, good to hear your mileage is improving. The numbers you just posted were about what I am getting for city (19.5 or so) and for highway (23-25 or thereabouts).

How many miles on your car now?

[JAZMKS]

tgara, on Mar 13 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

Jaz, good to hear your mileage is improving. The numbers you just posted were about what I am getting for city (19.5 or so) and for highway (23-25 or thereabouts).

How many miles on your car now?

I just ticked over 8,000. So miles have definately been put in. I did the oil change a the recommended 7500 and that's it. They checked the tire pressure to make sure it's correct and consistant. They use N^2, nitrogen. But whatever it is, it has improved. I think it was just the learning curve but who knows.