Ford Transit USA Forum banner

41 - 60 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
If in D mode you use the down arrow it
limits the gear. So you can set it up to 2nd or 3rd. I find it much than M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
I am just now seeing this thread, late to party as usual.

Not much to add really, but on this last summer’s 9000 mile adventure TX to OR / WA then CANADA and back via CO, I used the rocker switch on the gearshift quite a bit (think plenty of elevation change). From memory, I tried to keep highway revs near 2000 or above, especially if uphill. I screwed up more than once, leaving it in 4th long after I needed, because the EB is so smooth. I’ve learned to “pre-downshift” for passing, at least to 5th, maybe 4th, as there was a very noticeable pause If punching it at lower rpms in 6th.

Tow Haul is just a little too mindlessly aggressive at times, but I used it too. As my other vehicle has a stick shift (and a small turbo 4-cyl), I’ve learned being in the power band can be very important. If you are doddling along, there is nothing wrong with 1500 rpm or even less (IMHO), just don’t expect instant power or acceleration without a downshift. If on a gentle upgrade with needs for more oomph from time to time, I downshift to keep it closer to 2000, but certainly if on gentle slow downhill, there’s no need...unless you need engine braking.

In other words:

Note, the only risk to the engine is at load and low RPM, being at low load and low rpm is perfectly fine.
Also, if this (below) is true, there must be something my ECM doesn’t like at 1000-1400 rpm, because it just doesn’t react to throttle, until one-Missouri-two-Missouri, then violent 3-gear
downshift

...Even at 1000 RPM it has 260 ft lbs which is the same as the peak torque of the 3.7 at 4,250 rpm.
Although, I believe this:

According to the BEMM at 2000 rpm: 150 HP, 380 ft lbs, which is more torque than the diesel or 3.7 at any speed.
...

The ecoboost is a torque monster at any speed which makes it tempting to operate it at very low rpm in an effort to get better fuel economy by the user and the manufacturer to meet government requirements.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hat4RVn

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
I find this discussion of the tow haul mode and the heat buildup interesting. I’m buying a 2020 AWD cargo and I’m getting the hitch so I’ll be getting it with that option.
The 10 speed transmission and AWD will make it a different scenario. I’m really wanting to hear how this all shakes out. I can be persuaded to buy the new NA V6 instead of the eco boost if the info is good and it all works out better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
Does anyone know the gear ratios on the new 2020 Transit transmission w/3.5L ecoboost? Great topic. I'll be looking to avoid that burnt smell from the get-go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,367 Posts
It's an automatic habit to hit the T/H button everytime I start the van. Every - time.

Then the rest of the time I slip into M mode and get my RPMs up above 2000 before I hit a hill. I like to climb between 2000-3000 rpm if not even higher.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
My 245/75 tires result in almost a 10% differential, so if the odometer says 268 miles, you need to multiply by 1.10. You actually went about 295 miles, that is the figure you need to use when calculating mpg.

Also, at 65-70mph the wind resistance becomes a big factor resulting in lower mpg and even more so the faster you go.

Here's a recent comparison in a MR EcoBoost/3.31 axle with 245/75 tires, note that the turbos are not boosting at 70, but are at 80:
View attachment 130890 View attachment 130892
is being in-boost better or worse for mpg, all else being equal? Any chance going slightly faster to get into boost, vs in vacuum-mode would actually increase mpg?

One of these days I will learn enough to get a torque-pro or equivalent, and use it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: asdrew

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,641 Posts
...Any chance going slightly faster to get into boost, vs in vacuum-mode would actually increase mpg?...
Is this what you mean?

For years I've wondered if accelerating moderately over a longer period to say 70 mph uses more or less total fuel than quick acceleration and then cruising at that speed.
For instance, total fuel consumed to accelerate for 60 seconds vs. 30 seconds quicker acceleration + 30 seconds cruising.
I assume a lot depends on the vehicle and drive train specs, but it would seem there would be an ideal balance point.

One thing for sure is that Wifey's style of accelerating/braking/acclerating and never coasting or cruising steady does not help mpg nor brake longevity.
Help Wanted: volunteers braver than I to point that out to her, lol ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
This really is a math problem. The mass is resistant to acceleration and the boost adds air which needs fuel...always. If you set up a vacuum gauge and sat at zero boost you are still making boost. Any time out of vacuum will consume more fuel. That said this can be dependent on the tune installed by engineering. I've seen some pretty terrible tunes, in the old days, that showed the engineer was only concerned with boost performance. In regard a production vehicle today I don't see that being the case but anything is possible.

I'd say let the wife drive how she wants. The gas is cheaper than divorce court on any planet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
is being in-boost better or worse for mpg, all else being equal? Any chance going slightly faster to get into boost, vs in vacuum-mode would actually increase mpg?

One of these days I will learn enough to get a torque-pro or equivalent, and use it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I guess my question above was pretty naive. However, let’s say speed is constant, but you downshift to 5th, downshift again into 4th. So RPMs go up, but does boost therefore kick in? Let’s take 60mph, in 4th, 5th, and 6th, but in a couple different scenarios.

1) somewhat uphill...so there is a slight “strain” in 6th
2) not uphill or downhill, no headwind, no tailwind
3) coasting downhill, no “strain” in any of the gears.

Maybe 60mph is the wrong speed, but question is, does the strain cause boost to kick in, or is it the rpm, or both, or neither. If boost is on, load & speed constant, is more fuel used than under same load conditions with boost off....and then can you game this with the transmission switch?

I still think my question is poorly stated, but does the idea that you can be in too high a gear, have a boost perspective as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: asdrew

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,641 Posts
@going4speed , my lips are sealed.

@impatient , that is an interesting question. If I get on the road in the right conditions that may be an experiment to try.

Perhaps these gauges may yield some answers.
-set cruise to given speed on open road
-take screenshot
-manually downshift, take screenshot
-manually downshift again, take screenshot

131218
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
The strain you are referring to is load. If in 6th gear and you apply enough throttle for the vehicle to stay in 6th yet have enough load that the ecu determines boost is required then you're using more fuel. Now if you downshift and stay out of boost likely you are using less fuel. The thing is that even an increase in rpm requires more fuel.
Coasting downhill in 6th the vacuum gauge will likely read over 20 inches of mercury. The car will go full lean condition as fuel mapping is dependent on vacuum/boost. The other part of this equation is engine timing which is also dependent on vacuum boost.
 
41 - 60 of 73 Posts
Top