Volkswagen Eos vs. Ford Explorer Sport Trac MPG

Chart is based on 31 fuel economy reports for the Volkswagen Eos and 28 fuel economy reports for the Ford Explorer Sport Trac.

Volkswagen Eos MPG

Year	Body/Powertrain	flat, hilly, or mountainousLand	driving style: very light to "lead foot"Foot	A/C use: none to heavyA/C	constant stop and goTraf %	many stops per mileCity %	stop every mile or twoSub %	fairly steady speedHwy %	Hwy Spd	MPG
2013	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD	flat	med	light	0	23	76	1	70	21.0
2009	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed manual FWD	flat	light	none	0	0	50	50	65	30.0
2009	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD	flat	light	light	0	15	0	85	60	31.0
2008	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed manual FWD	flat	med	light	6	19	0	75	65	28.1
2008	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD	flat	med	light	9	15	33	43	63	28.8
2007	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD	flat	med	none	9	15	42	35	68	27.1
2007	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 140hp 2.0L I4 Diesel 6-speed automated manual FWD	flat	light	light	0	5	15	80	75	35.0
Looking for a warranty? Get a quote.
2007	2dr Hardtop conv. 250-horsepower 3.2L V6 6-speed automated manual FWD	hills	lead	light	3	10	10	78	78	23.8

This page shows only averages. See all the Volkswagen Eos fuel economy data.

Year	Body/Powertrain	flat, hilly, or mountainousLand	driving style: very light to "lead foot"Foot	A/C use: none to heavyA/C	constant stop and goTraf %	many stops per mileCity %	stop every mile or twoSub %	fairly steady speedHwy %	Hwy Spd	MPG
2010	4dr SUT 210-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	flat	med	none	0	25	28	48	70	16.7
2008	4dr SUT 292-horsepower 4.6L V8 6-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	hills	med	light	2	2	50	47	58	14.2
2008	4dr SUT 210-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	hvy	5	10	65	20	68	14.4
2007	4dr SUT 292-horsepower 4.6L V8 6-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	hvy	0	15	60	25	60	18.9
2007	4dr SUT 292-horsepower 4.6L V8 6-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	flat	med	none	10	20	23	47	63	16.5
2007	4dr SUT 210-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	med	light	3	53	35	10	60	17.8
2005	4dr SUT 205-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	flat	med	none	0	0	20	80	70	16.3
Looking for a warranty? Get a quote.
2004	4dr SUT 210-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	lead	light	10	30	20	40	75	20.0
2004	4dr SUT 210-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	flat	light	none	0	0	6	94	67	17.9
2003	4dr SUT 210-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	flat	med	none	5	30	38	28	68	17.0
2001	4dr SUT 203-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	flat	light	none	0	10	55	35	60	14.1

See TrueDelta's information for all Convertibles

See TrueDelta's information for all Volkswagen models and Ford models.

Volkswagen Eos Real Gas Mileage: Pros
Year	Body/Powertrain	Comment
2009	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed manual FWD	On the freeway, I get 32 MPG with the cruise set at 65. Around town, I get about 30, driving conservatively. On my commute, I find that I get 27 if I drive like everyone else, zooming and stopping. If I make an effort to minimize braking, and coast on the hills and where ever possible, I’ve gotten as high as 35 MPG on the same route. The car does need 91 octane—it will run on 89 octane, but the mileage goes down, so it is a false economy. see full Volkswagen Eos review
2008	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD	31 mpg plus on road trips see full Volkswagen Eos review
2008	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD	For my short commute I average 25 mpg. Driving longer distances with the top up I get better than 32 mpg. see full Volkswagen Eos review

Volkswagen Eos Real Gas Mileage: Cons
Year	Body/Powertrain	Comment
2012	2dr Hardtop conv. turbocharged 200hp 2.0L I4 6-speed automated manual FWD	I have averaged 27.3 MPG since new which in itself is not bad but the engine requires a minimum of 91 octane fuel. Based on availability that makes it require 93 octane fuel. If the added fuel cost is considered that effectively makes fuel cost the same as a car averaging 25 MPG using 87 octane fuel. Most of my driving is highway and I do not view this as economical for a 2 liter 4. My other car has a 35% more powerful engine and is both larger and heavier but has lower fuel cost. see full Volkswagen Eos review

Ford Explorer Sport Trac Real Gas Mileage: Cons
Year	Body/Powertrain	Comment
2008	4dr SUT 292-horsepower 4.6L V8 6-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	99 Dodge Durango with 5.9 V8 got better fuel economy with same driving habits. Expected better with smaller V8 and 6 speed trans. see full Ford Explorer Sport Trac review
2008	4dr SUT 210-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	Terrible. I've owned fullsize pickups and SUV so I know what to expect. I've never seen the average mpg display read over 15mpg for the six months I've owned it. The main reason I bought this was the combination AWD and 4WD transfer case, but it doesn't have a 2 wheel drive position like my Sierra did. Boy do I miss that, I averaged 20 mpg per tank. see full Ford Explorer Sport Trac review
2007	4dr SUT 292-horsepower 4.6L V8 6-speed automatic 4WD w/low range	highway mileage is very good, better than my lighter V6 Ranger; 21mpg on the highway @ 75mph on flat road. City, with the remote start in winter, with the AWD kicking in, and lead foot acceleration nets me 13mpg. A light foot can get 15mpg city see full Ford Explorer Sport Trac review
2002	4dr SUT 203-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	I think we all wish for 30 mpd-thats unrealistic when you have 10000+ lbs on the road when towing. see full Ford Explorer Sport Trac review