MPG gain in sport vs. Its inherent extra wear on components

[Blmpkn]

If this has already been discussed I apologize.

Been reading quite a few people on here say they drive around in sport mode for the sole purpose of getting more MPG.. which is great. I don't think anyone would turn down more efficiency with all things remaining equal.

However, my quick test/observation on my way home has me questioning just how big of a favor these people are doing for themselves.

On a flat stretch of road going 45mph in drive.. my motor was spinning right around 1500 rpm. All things equal but put into SPORT my rpm jumped and stayed at about 2500 rpm. I'm too lazy to do the exact math but that's nearly a 75% increase in rpm for the same speed.

This (more or less) means that if I drove my truck exactly like that for 100k miles, the motor would have done roughly the equivalent of 175k miles worth of spinning compared to if I had just used regular old drive.

Does the meager amount of additional efficiency offset the much larger increase in "work" the motor has to do? Personally, I don't think so.

Sponsored

 

[AzScorpion]

Well Sid @Msfitoy has almost 90,000 miles (maybe more I cant keep up with him) and drives solely in S mode with zero problems. As far as getting better mpg I doubt it because you're driving in a higher rpm and there's no way you're driving tame in S mode as it's way to much fun.

 

[slowmachine]

I think that if the Ranger is really more efficient in Sport mode that it would be the normal Drive mode. EPA numbers are very important to manufacturers, and nobody would pass-up an opportunity for a higher rating.

 

[Blmpkn]

Well Sid @Msfitoy has almost 90,000 miles (maybe more I cant keep up with him) and drives solely in S mode with zero problems. As far as getting better mpg I doubt it because you're driving in a higher rpm and there's no way you're driving tame in S mode as it's way to much fun.

The increase in rpm brings the truck to a range where its operating closer to where it would be making its peak TQ without the help of the turbo... this is where the efficiency boost comes from.

As far as that member having 90k... I'd hope he hasn't had any issues yet... even if the "actual" mileage is closer to my estimation above. That's peanuts for mileage these days.


This isn't a concern for people who are just going to upgrade in a few years... it's a concern for those of here who would like to maximize its useful life without needing a new motor.

 

[AzScorpion]

The increase in rpm brings the truck to a range where its operating closer to where it would be making its peak TQ without the help of the turbo... this is where the efficiency boost comes from.

As far as that member having 90k... I'd hope he hasn't had any issues yet... even if the "actual" mileage is closer to my estimation above. That's peanuts for mileage these days.


This isn't a concern for people who are just going to upgrade in a few years... it's a concern for those of here who would like to maximize its useful life without needing a new motor.

You asked about wear on its components and Sid (I think) has the highest mileage Ranger on here. Drives daily in S mode and no problems so your answer of "I hope he hasn't" doesn't make sense. Since the Ranger has been out for just about 3 years now you're not going to find many if any who have 150,000 or more miles on theirs. I think he's a great example of real world driving and he's pretty loaded down too with gear and his RTT.

You're not going to get better mpg driving 1000 rpm's higher, just look at your mpg drop when you're doing this on the gauge. Heck any load on it like an incline you'll see it drop never mind running it 1000+ rpm's more. I go back and forth between D & S modes and have never got better mileage in S. If you are you're going down hill both ways.

 

[BassRanger]

Take people's fuel economy reports and recommendations with a grain of salt. Between this board and the FB group I've seen all kinds of wild claims, tips, and tricks about fuel economy with this truck. There's someone on the FB group claiming he literally doubled his mpg on 93 octane over 87.

 

[bobobama]

This is the first I've heard of people getting better mileage in Sport mode. At the same time, many engines are designed to run at higher revs to get the most performance, and possibly efficiency, out of them. Think about any German engine (I've had a few); they like to be run hard and are designed to do so and babying them does them no favors.

So I guess it's up to the real world experiences of those on this forum and all other users of the 2.3L Ecoboost as well to determine whether higher revs means greater efficiency/mileage while long term survivability suffers.

 

[Msfitoy]

Well Sid @Msfitoy has almost 90,000 miles (maybe more I cant keep up with him) and drives solely in S mode with zero problems. As far as getting better mpg I doubt it because you're driving in a higher rpm and there's no way you're driving tame in S mode as it's way to much fun.

I think I'm slowing down...around 82K today...I drive in S mode in stop/go traffic...on a steady highway with cruise on, I'll have it in D...if it's a little hilly, I'll have it in D tow... ?

 

[AzScorpion]

I think I'm slowing down...around 82K today...I drive in S mode in stop/go traffic...on a steady highway with cruise on, I'll have it in D...if it's a little hilly, I'll have it in D tow... ?

What, no more lunchtime pizza runs lately? For some reason I thought you had 86K on there a few months ago? You sure you haven't been driving in R lately?

 

[ControlNode]

Does the meager amount of additional efficiency offset the much larger increase in "work" the motor has to do? Personally, I don't think so.

I'm not sure there is an increase in "work" as you state. To me the engine had a better mechanical advantage in lower gears, and while it's turning a higher rpm the work should be about the same. Think of leverage, more power over short distance with short lever vs less power over long distance with long lever = same work. I get with all the moving parts in an engine that is not a 1:1 comparison, but it's a good starting point for it. The rotating mass at a higher RPM = more kinetic energy, so some things become easier for it to just over come. But then with higher rpm there is higher oil pressure which is more resistance. And, I forgot where I was going with this.

 

[OCL]

I put mine in S mode on hilly terrain, or slow stop and go traffic. In D, the ECM likes to lug the motor at slow speeds and the transmissions ends up hunting, so it's annoying to me. Out in the open roads, mostly flat terrain, steady state cruising, I just leave it in D.

It feels like the motor is happier above 2k RPM when in the taller gears. It also seems happier when the transmission uses ALL the gears as the truck is accelerating. I hate it when the 10-speed skips gears during acceleration. My F150 with the 5.0 V8 did that and it was annoying too. Because it felt like acceleration would slow down when it skipped gears, and the engine, yes even the V8, needed to work a bit harder.

 

[Msfitoy]

What no more lunchtime pizza runs lately? For some reason I thought you had 86K on there a few months ago? You sure you haven't been driving in R lately?

Working from home, I sure do have get my ass out for lunch just to blow off the cob webs...just not crossing state lines for lunch... ? ?

 

[Trigganometry]

Sport mode is definitely in a higher RPM range. Truck is way more responsive in sport because of it. Better mileage? ? Can’t say with any certainty but probably not.

In drive you can still lock out gears and get it to act like sport mode and run RPM’s in a lower range say 1800 to 2200. Now that still keeps you from lugging along but gives acceptable MPG along with it.

You can get it to act like it’s in drive by holding the +/- button 3 or 4 seconds in sport mode. It will auto shift again

 

[VAMike]

As others have suggested, no way mileage increases in sport mode. The ability for the human brain to see what it wants to see is always fascinating.

 

[Josebd]

The increase in rpm brings the truck to a range where its operating closer to where it would be making its peak TQ without the help of the turbo... this is where the efficiency boost comes from.

As far as that member having 90k... I'd hope he hasn't had any issues yet... even if the "actual" mileage is closer to my estimation above. That's peanuts for mileage these days.


This isn't a concern for people who are just going to upgrade in a few years... it's a concern for those of here who would like to maximize its useful life without needing a new motor.

Keep it in d then

Sponsored