MPG for 3.7L Transit Wagon or Van - Page 3 - Ford Transit USA Forum
 20Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-04-2015, 12:05:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,360
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubcappizza View Post
Hey some more data for what its worth
Did the Sanford Maine to Concord NH trip
all state hwy. twisty turny rolling terrain
moderate traffic 50 to no more than 62 mph
no wind 52.9 miles 18.0 MPG quite a surprise.
I was easy on the gas and not in any kind of a hurry.
not bad..
Hubcappizz,

Thanks for doing the slower trip to guage the milage difference. With your report and others, unless it is a strong headwind, it appears the difference in mileage, is not the axle or height, but the mph over 65.
Reinforces what a lifetime of driving has taught us all.

Semper Fi
PeterR likes this.

12/4/15 Finally able to drive.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

6/26/15 At Mobility upfitter.
4/2/15 - Built , 3/24/15 - Window Sticker
12/12/14 - Ordered, 350 HR XLT Wagon, 148 WB, 3.5 EB, 3.31 LS,
USMC Vet is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-04-2015, 03:05:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC Vet View Post
Hubcappizz,

Thanks for doing the slower trip to guage the milage difference. With your report and others, unless it is a strong headwind, it appears the difference in mileage, is not the axle or height, but the mph over 65.
Reinforces what a lifetime of driving has taught us all.

Semper Fi
SF, there are many variables which affect MPGs, speed being just one. Generally slower is better, but only to a point.

Size, weight, engine size, gearing, etc... also matter. A big and heavy RV at 50 MPH will still get low MPGs, so speed alone can't overcome other factors. The same goes for gearing. Taller is generally better, but only to a point. Exceeding the optimum for a given condition has adverse effect.

The important thing to know is that it's not so simple that it can be isolated to one best speed, one best axle ratio, etc. it doesn't work that way because pretty much every variable interacts with other variables. For example, the optimum axle ratio for one engine size is not the same for another engine size, assuming of course that other conditions are the same.

Some variables are almost always advantageous, like lighter weight, more aero, smaller area, lower friction, etc. But when it comes to comparing powertrains, extending a trend in one direction has limits. The obsession some have with 3.31 makes little sense to me. It's not a cure to everything in order to improve fuel economy.
alarmist and tdinut like this.
Chance is offline  
post #23 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-04-2015, 03:45:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,360
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance View Post
SF, there are many variables which affect MPGs, speed being just one. Generally slower is better, but only to a point.

Size, weight, engine size, gearing, etc... also matter. A big and heavy RV at 50 MPH will still get low MPGs, so speed alone can't overcome other factors. The same goes for gearing. Taller is generally better, but only to a point. Exceeding the optimum for a given condition has adverse effect.

The important thing to know is that it's not so simple that it can be isolated to one best speed, one best axle ratio, etc. it doesn't work that way because pretty much every variable interacts with other variables. For example, the optimum axle ratio for one engine size is not the same for another engine size, assuming of course that other conditions are the same.

Some variables are almost always advantageous, like lighter weight, more aero, smaller area, lower friction, etc. But when it comes to comparing powertrains, extending a trend in one direction has limits. The obsession some have with 3.31 makes little sense to me. It's not a cure to everything in order to improve fuel economy.
Chance,

Agree to a point, BUT, when the big rigs you mention also get far better mileage at 65 than above that, irregardless of load, it shows that that is the variable that matters. And why some trucking companies put govoners on their fleets. Doesn't matter how you have your Transit configuered or loaded, you will get better mpg at 65 and lower than you will above that. Owners are already proving that with their posts.

BTW, he has a 3.7, not a 3.31.

Semper Fi
PeterR likes this.

12/4/15 Finally able to drive.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

6/26/15 At Mobility upfitter.
4/2/15 - Built , 3/24/15 - Window Sticker
12/12/14 - Ordered, 350 HR XLT Wagon, 148 WB, 3.5 EB, 3.31 LS,
USMC Vet is offline  
 
post #24 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-04-2015, 05:50:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC Vet View Post
.....cut.....

Doesn't matter how you have your Transit configuered or loaded, you will get better mpg at 65 and lower than you will above that. Owners are already proving that with their posts.

BTW, he has a 3.7, not a 3.31.

Semper Fi
Generalizations are dangerous. As I stated, slower is better but only to a point. That's common knowledge.

At 0 MPH you get 0 MPG, right? That's an easily proven extreme to show there are limits. For most vehicles 65 is better than 80, and 50 better than 65 MPH. But somewhere between 30 and 50 most cars and light vehicles reach a peak in steady-state fuel economy. Below that fuel economy gets worse.

I'm not sure we are really disagreeing on much other than my objections to generalizations like those often made about gearing.



And for what it's worth, 3.31 was referring to an axle ratio that some are fixated on, not an engine size like 3.7 liters in displacement. I think the 3.31 axle is not even available with NA 3.7L engine. And for good reason.
Chance is offline  
post #25 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-04-2015, 06:45:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,360
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Chance,
You're right, my bad, I typed in the wrong info, hubcappizza has a 4.10.

The info from his post(s) was that he was not happy with his mileage on a particular run traveling at high speed. He was asked to maybe do it again at 65 or less. He did and had much better milage.

Semper Fi

12/4/15 Finally able to drive.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

6/26/15 At Mobility upfitter.
4/2/15 - Built , 3/24/15 - Window Sticker
12/12/14 - Ordered, 350 HR XLT Wagon, 148 WB, 3.5 EB, 3.31 LS,
USMC Vet is offline  
post #26 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-16-2015, 11:59:PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Trip Mileage, Part Deux

So a follow-up on MPG with my T-250 LWB Medium Roof, 3.73 limited slip. Around christmas I did a 2,400 mile loop down the Oregon and California coast to San Francisco. Got 17.6 on the trip computer and 18 by my math. Weigh station said my GVWR was 6,500 or thereabouts and average speed overall was pretty slow. Probably 45-50mph.

A couple weeks ago I did a work trip to San Francisco, but this time on I-5 both directions. There were 4 big guys and about 1,500 lbs of luggage and gear, so GWVR was upwards of 7,500 lbs. A little mellower going southbound probably averaging somewhere around 65mph. Got 17mpg southbound. Heading back north we pushed through and did it in one day so we went a bit quicker—5-7mph over the speed limit at all times and pushing it through the mountains. Average speed was upwards of 70mph overall and we were doing 75mph regularly in the faster sections. It brought the overall average down to 16.5mpg for the whole 1,900 mile round trip.

Around town I regularly get 12-13mpg. I live in a small town that is all hills, shorts trips, lots of stop and go, no highways.
PeterR likes this.
Johnnydanger is offline  
post #27 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-31-2015, 03:11:AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 570 Post(s)
FYI SuprMover's 15.8 MPG with 3.7 and 3.73 rear end is here:

Is this a case of 'Not-Invented-Here' Syndrome?

2015 XLT 150 Wagon, 3.5EB/3.31LS, 130" WB, low roof, 8-passenger, full trailer tow incl. brake controller, ordered 12/14, delivered 4/20.

Last edited by PeterR; 03-31-2015 at 03:17:AM.
PeterR is offline  
post #28 of 73 (permalink) Old 03-31-2015, 09:54:AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
The general trend as reported seems to me to be that on the highway the most important factor is speed, followed by air temperature. Both affect drag. Load or GVW isn't quite as important on highway. Differences between 3.7 and 3.5 EB and or axle ratios are hard to detect by comparison; short of doing statistical analysis.

Above excludes towing, which changes everything. For me the bottom line is that since they are all very similar, I'm not going to select/equip a $40,000 vehicle to perhaps save or spend an extra $100 in gasoline. I'll get what I want and live with the consequences.
bobojay, Hubcappizza and tdinut like this.
Chance is offline  
post #29 of 73 (permalink) Old 04-24-2015, 01:19:AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Mileage computer tells me I'm getting 14.8 - 14.9 mpg. And it's the same whether I'm driving at 60, 65, 70 or sitting perfectly still, idling in traffic! Not a lot of confidence there.

Last weekend we took the iron tent camping in the desert of So. Cal. Roughly 180 miles round trip, including slow, winding back roads and 65-70 mph highway. Filled up before and afterwards and got 14.6 mpg.

Go figure. Apparently the system is clairvoyant.
richard is online now  
post #30 of 73 (permalink) Old 04-30-2015, 06:00:AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 570 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard View Post
Mileage computer tells me I'm getting 14.8 - 14.9 mpg. And it's the same whether I'm driving at 60, 65, 70 or sitting perfectly still, idling in traffic! Not a lot of confidence there.

Last weekend we took the iron tent camping in the desert of So. Cal. Roughly 180 miles round trip, including slow, winding back roads and 65-70 mph highway. Filled up before and afterwards and got 14.6 mpg.

Go figure. Apparently the system is clairvoyant.
When you are in the MPG screen, are you resetting the MPG to zero it out for each trip segment and/or fill up? There are separate tallies for Trip 1 and Trip 2, and MPG and Trip Mileage screens, each of which must be manually reset if you want correct data (not just cumulative reports).

2015 XLT 150 Wagon, 3.5EB/3.31LS, 130" WB, low roof, 8-passenger, full trailer tow incl. brake controller, ordered 12/14, delivered 4/20.
PeterR is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



  Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Towing capacity: van vs wagon stubble Engine and Technical Discussion 14 02-22-2017 01:06:AM
2014 Ford Transit Connect Gets 30 MPG DearbornDude Ford Transit Connect General Discussion 2 11-06-2016 09:07:PM
Diesel MPG mojogoat Ford Transit Mileage and MPGs 11 11-08-2015 08:52:PM
MPG for 3.7L Transit Wagon or Van ilovehotshot Ford Transit General Discussion 2 01-03-2015 06:32:AM
Isn't the Transit Connect Wagon just a mini-van by another name? tmillar Ford Transit General Discussion 42 06-05-2014 04:45:PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off