[Andre Jones]

Maybe my expectations were too high but we had a rental Expedition for the past week (~800mi) and to my surprise we were only able to massage 18.5mpg out of it (85%highway/15%city). In similar conditions in the Transit I've been able to massage 18.2mpg with significantly more stuff loaded. I did very much appreciate the additional range the 28gallon tank provided and using Sync3 was pretty cool.

The last thing that comes to mind is how so many refer to the 3.7 downshifting to go up the smallest hill, or to get up to highway speed, or god forbid pass a vehicle but so did this 3.5EB in a smaller chassis. So what gives? Is the Expedition's transmission so different or does the additional power in the 3.5EB Expedition guise actually make it worse than in the Transits?

On an un-related note the handling of those things is sub-par compared to the Transit, so much body roll and the need for many mid-corner steering adjustments (understeer).

 

[EddieZ]

Oh, interesting. I first thought you just meant a smaller Ecoboost engine. My nephew got a 1.6L EB in an Escape. He does get great gas mileage. But, my 3.5L EB van has more get-up and go! With the smaller Escape, I thought the little engine would perform better than it does.

 

[Damaskinos_of_Athens]

.
Curb weight of Expedition may exceed the particular Transit you have.

Not a fan of SUV for that reason. Heavy and cramped on the inside.

Side note: Ford puts a 2.3 in Explorer and that weighs as much as a smaller Transit. Might be a good match for that part of the range, especially with the ten speed.
.

 

[Andre Jones]

I guess it's a bit closer than I expected but we do carry a decent bit more cargo than we had in the rental.

According to Google 2017, XLT Expedition Curb weight: 5,789 lbs
Transit-350 XLT Wagon: Curb weight: 6,034 lbs

 

[KingCass]

Is the expedition AWD? or is it 4wd? if so the extra running gear will kill mileage a lot. Thats the drawback to AWD transit with ecoboost.

 

[Budsky]

My nephew got a 1.6L EB in an Escape. He does get great gas mileage.

Interesting- I had a 2013 AWD Escape 1.6L Ecoboost and I though the mileage was abysmal- Ford claimed something like 32 IIRC but I never saw over 22-23, even on long trips at 55 on 2 lane.
Luckily it was a company car so I didn't actually own it- I would have been pretty mad about the mileage.
It would haul ass though!

 

[LarryPDX]

Smaller Ecoboost

Ford is selling the F-150 with a 2.7 ecoboost and 10 speed automatic.

Hope this shows up as an option for the smaller transits.

Larry

 

[Andre Jones]

Is the expedition AWD? or is it 4wd? if so the extra running gear will kill mileage a lot. Thats the drawback to AWD transit with ecoboost.

4WD with 4A and 4L. We left it in 2WD the whole time, the extra running gear should've just amounted to weight I would think.

 

[RandomJoe]

Current transmissions are "learning" ones - maybe the rental had some really bad drivers in the first few hundred miles who taught it bad habits?

I think there'd still be other losses besides just the weight of the 4WD since the transfer case is still in-line. Not sure what's inside those though, never had 4WD.

But being 4WD, perhaps it had a higher geared rear end contributing to lower mileage?

It's remarkable to me how wide the range of average MPG is for the EB3.5 engines, without any real consistency either. Whether in F150s, Transits, whatever. Some people *claim* to get crazy-high mileage even when driving 75MPH, others can't get more than 12 babying it along at 55...!

I'm a pretty smooth and easy-going driver (most of the time! ) so in the past have gotten a fair bit higher MPG in a given vehicle than the average driver. With my Transit, compared to what others report here, I'm generally somewhere in the middle of the range - even toward the low end if considering just those who say they're lightly loaded.

 

[Hack Saw]

Oh, interesting. I first thought you just meant a smaller Ecoboost engine. My nephew got a 1.6L EB in an Escape. He does get great gas mileage. But, my 3.5L EB van has more get-up and go! With the smaller Escape, I thought the little engine would perform better than it does.

I did too, and had me thinking 2.7EB, which makes 325hp/375 ft/lb. and just makes me wonder if we'll see it in the van sometime soon? Replace the 3.7L? In thinking, I doubt it cause the cost to manufacture can only be more, so to keep things price-point competitive, I think the 3.7L has a long life ahead of it. In fact, in further thought, as the Police Explorer is an AWD version of the 3.7L, I wonder, if in the quest to provide some van (passenger most likely first to control load #'s) if we'll see a light-duty AWD passenger-specific Transit akin to the Chevy 1500 (only) AWD like what Accrete has done up. Not off-road, but to enable the passenger version more road-worthy in the sense of being a more 'well-rounded' vehicle to haul people in more diverse road conditions. Let's fact it, there are church-groups, teams, hotels, etc...in the snow belt from a commercial perspective, and having a large 'family' AWD vehicle as a daily-driver just simply makes sense. A quick review of weight has this Explorer at 4639 lbs. and a 3.7 130" 40/60 door l/r at 4866 lbs.; a mere 227 lbs. difference. This would give Ford a real-world test of an AWD van and scoop up that entire GM crowd along the way once mileage on their 1500's has their back against the wall. Eh?, you heard it here first.

 

[Andre Jones]

Current transmissions are "learning" ones - maybe the rental had some really bad drivers in the first few hundred miles who taught it bad habits?

I think there'd still be other losses besides just the weight of the 4WD since the transfer case is still in-line. Not sure what's inside those though, never had 4WD.

But being 4WD, perhaps it had a higher geared rear end contributing to lower mileage?

It's remarkable to me how wide the range of average MPG is for the EB3.5 engines, without any real consistency either. Whether in F150s, Transits, whatever. Some people *claim* to get crazy-high mileage even when driving 75MPH, others can't get more than 12 babying it along at 55...!

I'm a pretty smooth and easy-going driver (most of the time! ) so in the past have gotten a fair bit higher MPG in a given vehicle than the average driver. With my Transit, compared to what others report here, I'm generally somewhere in the middle of the range - even toward the low end if considering just those who say they're lightly loaded.

The 3.5eb in those is mated to the same(?) 3.73 which may be too tall. I agree as well in regards to maybe it has learned some bad habits.

I think the large variance must have to do with climate, elevation, and fuel blend variations. Turbos and computers make for great speed, and often greater complexity.

 

[impatient]

"I'm a pretty smooth and easy-going driver (most of the time! ) so in the past have gotten a fair bit higher MPG in a given vehicle than the average driver. With my Transit, compared to what others report here, I'm generally somewhere in the middle of the range - even toward the low end if considering just those who say they're lightly loaded."

Me too....or at least as compared to the lie-o-meter. I've hand calculated up to 2mpg short of what the computer reports.

But back to topic, the HP /torque of the 2.7 sounds good....depending on torque curve.

If they made a nonturbo 4.2, more torque and HP than EB, might be good. In other words, I consider 3.7 "stressed" underpowered, and 3.5 EB overpowered. Regardless, Ford needs to get fuel economy up, and/or get the lie-o-meter to fess up.

Maybe my lie-o-meter is calibrated to low roof. Sorry, can't keep from veering OT.

 

[joefromga]

No car is overpowered.

 

[Truck]

I get being forced into a Ford Tranist because there just aren't other options, but why people buy their passenger vehicles is mind boggling. But then again... trump supporters exist too.

 

[surly Bill]

No car is overpowered.

I watched a show about these guys making an electric drag racer out of an old mail truck. Evidently, some cars ARE over powered!

After they snapped the driveshaft and axles because of the instant 100% torque, they made them stronger. Then they couldn't keep tires on the rims because the axle would spin so fast right from the start that the tires would spin on the rims and then fly apart. I believe their final solution was to go with a belt drive instead of a driveshaft because it would have enough "give" as the belt spun until it caught that the tires wouldn't get shredded with instant acceleration.

electric powered cars can be beasts

 

[EddieZ]

I get being forced into a Ford Tranist because there just aren't other options, but why people buy their passenger vehicles is mind boggling. But then again... trump supporters exist too.

Not cool. We do not need politics on this site.

 

[Tchgrif]

excellent points for awd just to add though. as a contractor in pittsburgh complete with bad weather and steep hills awd would be a great help. anyone who thinks traction control is the same thing is not from here. this is my only real complaint on this work truck and the aftermarket costs are absurd.

 

[Eiko]

excellent points for awd just to add though. as a contractor in pittsburgh complete with bad weather and steep hills awd would be a great help. anyone who thinks traction control is the same thing is not from here.

I assume you're going to switch to true snow tires? There's a youtube video of a BMW 3 series RWD with snows and his brother in an otherwise identical 3 series but AWD on all-seasons. His brother is stuck halfway up a hill in Seattle and the RWD brother just zips right on by him. Granted, Seattle doesn't have the snow and hills you do but snows really help.

You're right, traction control simply brakes the wheel so you don't spin the wheel with less traction. Not a substitute for limited slip. Same is true for cheap AWD systems without limited slips - those AWDs may not help as much as you think it would.

 

[Tchgrif]

I assume you're going to switch to true snow tires? There's a youtube video of a BMW 3 series RWD with snows and his brother in an otherwise identical 3 series but AWD on all-seasons. His brother is stuck halfway up a hill in Seattle and the RWD brother just zips right on by him. Granted, Seattle doesn't have the snow and hills you do but snows really help.

You're right, traction control simply brakes the wheel so you don't spin the wheel with less traction. Not a substitute for limited slip. Same is true for cheap AWD systems without limited slips - those AWDs may not help as much as you think it would.

Yes I run conti's snow tires and yes it has limited slip, works great once you turn off traction control. but......my other two cars are both awd, limited slip or a computer control vectoring system that works the same, traction control........I know the difference and its substantial. Any one from here for more than a year understands snow tires. Also the way ford set up this limited slip makes disengaging traction control a must to get full use. never an issue in the other two cars, both of which are suv's but the limited slip is electronically engaged in both not engaged after a set amount of spin. I often give snow tires to employees as christmas gifts, that's how much i believe in them.

 

[Eiko]

I often give snow tires to employees as christmas gifts, that's how much i believe in them.

Good on you! Milwaukee has snow but not the hills you do. I've given up trying to tell people that snow tires are a good thing.