Ford Transit USA Forum banner
21 - 23 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
No, most guys are getting 23 max, 21 is more typical.
Guys getting above 23 are driving very deliberately economically and monitoring their driving very carefully and going below the highway speed limits.
Also the anticipated increase in MPG in Sprinters following break-in have not been seen.
The first 2000 miles reflect pretty much what the rest will be like despite everyone assuming an increase.

My 04 with over 500,000 miles on her gets 23 Highway, and mine broke in right around 100,000 picked up about 2 mpg. I am an active member on the Sprinter site guys are getting 26 out of the 4 cylinder. Gonna see what the transit Diesel will get
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Aerodynamics shouldn't matter much for city MPG, where there's a 20% difference between the 3.7 Transit and F150, 14 vs 17.

Frontal area:
Width without mirrors: Transit 81.3, F150 79.2, about 3% more
Height: low roof Transit 83.6, F150 75, about 10% more

The front of the Transit appears considerably more aerodynamic than F150. The rear area on the Transit is larger, but then there's that tailgate on the F150.

So why the 20% difference in highway MPG (19 vs 23?)
Without more data from Ford, it's tough to tell. We don't know if this is from the EPA cycle, or just Ford putting a number out there. Best I can tell, the empty weight of the f-150 with the 3.7 is about 4600 lbs, while the transit is about 5200 lbs. That will account for some of it. Also the Transit has the 3.73 rear end while the f-150 has the 3.55 rear end, which will contribute a bit as well. Throw in the impact of greater frontal area, which will still impact the mileage somewhat, even at lower speeds, and there you go...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,527 Posts
Aerodynamics shouldn't matter much for city MPG, where there's a 20% difference between the 3.7 Transit and F150, 14 vs 17.

Frontal area:
Width without mirrors: Transit 81.3, F150 79.2, about 3% more
Height: low roof Transit 83.6, F150 75, about 10% more

The front of the Transit appears considerably more aerodynamic than F150. The rear area on the Transit is larger, but then there's that tailgate on the F150.

So why the 20% difference in highway MPG (19 vs 23?)
There are a bunch of factors that make this issue less precise than some of us would like.

For starters, the MPG ratings are rounded off to nearest integer. Hence, the 4 MPG difference could be much closer to 3 MPG for all we know.

Also, the Ford release states "wagon" which are typically much heavier than the van version.

And as mentioned above, final gear ratios are different. And to make this issue greater, the vans have much smaller diameter tires than an F-150, so the effective gearing is much lower.
 
21 - 23 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top