[ilovehotshot]

It would be helpful if owners of either Vans or Wagons with the 3.7L.

For now let's include all lengths and roof heights, using the Transit's computer MPG and/or hand-calculated figures. Running totals for the life of the vehicle, and for various discreet trips will be helpful, for those so inclined, in my opinion.

It will be very helpful if you can update your signature (via the User CP at the top right) to include all pertinent information, so that it is not necessary for others to ask about the details of your Transit.

Borrowed wording and idea from PeterR.

Thanks

 

[lblau]

Swb,med roof, 3.7 van
Lightly loaded, mostly 65/70 highway.some pennsylvania hill country.
2647 miles.
Hand calculated at 16.7
Computer says 17.7

 

[PeterR]

Which rear end ratio, lblau? Thanks

 

[Hubcappizza]

Ok maiden voyage MPG with 3.7

All the details
3.7 L
4:10 Rear
High roof
Long WB ext.
T 350 SRW
Loaded with approximately 1500 lbs of shelving /product.
Clear weather 10-15 wind from the west
70 -75 ave highway speed
Concord NH to Worcester ma SW in direction - approx 90 miles
of up and down highway use 16.2 mpg.
Concord to worcester to waltham to concord round trip
3/4 highway 1/4 in town stop and go 14.6 all according to
our onboard computer.
I thought we'd actually do better but this a large van with everything
against it. will repost after a concord to bangor trip next week

 

[PeterR]

All the details
3.7 L
4:10 Rear
High roof
Long WB ext.
T 350 SRW
Loaded with approximately 1500 lbs of shelving /product.
Clear weather 10-15 wind from the west
70 -75 ave highway speed
Concord NH to Worcester ma SW in direction - approx 90 miles
of up and down highway use 16.2 mpg.
Concord to worcester to waltham to concord round trip
3/4 highway 1/4 in town stop and go 14.6 all according to
our onboard computer.
I thought we'd actually do better but this a large van with everything
against it. will repost after a concord to bangor trip next week

Look forward to your next report. With the 4.10 rear end and high roof, your posted MPG seems OK. FWIW my old Econoline Club Wagon E-350 with a similar rear end (4.09?) had much worse MPG. . .

 

[SuprMover]

2015 Transit 250 with 3.7L and 3.73 limited slip. Mid roof 148 WB. Usually loaded between 7800-9000 pounds. Currently has 5500 miles. Hand calculated mpg is 14.6. Including two tanks of E-85 where mileage was in the single digits.

 

[cutndry]

11.26mpg First fill up 17gal at costco $2.24/gal (Orange Co. CA) 191.5 on the trip meter set leaving dealer . This number may be way off because the dealer filled the tank and I'm not sure if they topped it off completely.

250, lwb, mr

30mi. freeway driving 65-70mph the rest stop and go SoCal driving. (more stop then go )

 

[Hubcappizza]

t350 hr ext 4:10 3.7 L
I did not do the bangor trip this week cause of our blizzard that occurred today
instead went over the franconia notch
Tilton NH to Gorham NH 2000 ft elevation gain and loss 140 mile round trip
10 F no real wind 13.9 overall 80/20 hywy city
next week will be a real long distance hywy test

 

[Hubcappizza]

Ok got a trip from portland maine to concord NH
99 miles
13.9 mpg ave
75-80 cruise control assisted 90 highway miles
9 secondary highway miles.
5 degrees pretty strong winds from the side and head on .
fairly empty 1500 pounds maybe
I just think between the wind and the cold weather it is lower than I expected

 

[Chance]

Ok got a trip from portland maine to concord NH
99 miles
13.9 mpg ave
75-80 cruise control assisted 90 highway miles
9 secondary highway miles.
5 degrees pretty strong winds from the side and head on .
fairly empty 1500 pounds maybe
I just think between the wind and the cold weather it is lower than I expected

Great data; thanks for posting. I think we can all agree that moving a large van at high speeds takes a toll on fuel economy.

It's also very interesting that your 13.9 MPG at 75 to 80 MPH is comparable to Longboard's 12 MPG at 80 MPH for a similar van but with 3.5L EB and 3.31 gears.

Obviously it's impossible to conclude much of anything from limited data, particularly when there is overlap in results that can't be explained with one or two known variables.

At least this report confirms for me that Ford's similar MPG ratings for EB and 3.7L vans must have some valid basis. Not that I doubted it.

 

[USMC Vet]

Hubcappizza,

What would really be telling is if you made the same trip again, but keeping it at around 65.

Semper Fi

 

[PeterR]

Pushing the high roof through the air at 75-80 on cruise control is the killer to MPG IMO, especially if you were going up and down hills, without relying on the driver to coast on the down hills, and drop speed on the climbs as a hill is crested.

 

[Hubcappizza]

65mph

Hubcappizza,

What would really be telling is if you made the same trip again, but keeping it at around 65.

Semper Fi

It would be hard for me time is $- but I imagine it makes 1-2 MPG difference
I think the big thing is the high roof,and ANY wind --
The over 20 EB mileage posts got me down a bit
but then these are low roof models.
I'll continue to monitor it though

 

[Hubcappizza]

Another trip

Hey all 3.7 owners I did another trip
Concord NH to Worcester MA to Natick MA and back
it was 20 degrees no wind to speak of clear
relatively flat to rolling terrain 80% highway
20% mixed highway with some stop and go heavy traffic and
in and out of car dealer lots
idled 10-15 minutes ( it was cold)
full load 1200 lbs hardly anything for this High roof 350 though
205 miles 14.7 MPG
i was pleasantly surprised really would like to see 15 though
maybe soon --

 

[PeterR]

Hubcappizza, excellent results for the HR extended with 4.10 rear end IMO!

 

[Hubcappizza]

Hubcappizza, excellent results for the HR extended with 4.10 rear end IMO!

I kept the computer off and didn't look at it the whole trip
I don't push it real hard- slow starts and try to moderate stops
and assist the cruise in hill climbs.. Still I was happy with it also!
My benefit is the light load, since I bought out of dealer stock, I got
what I got i believe I would have preferred different rear end and eco
but if i can get to 15 that be ok

 

[Chance]

I kept the computer off and didn't look at it the whole trip
I don't push it real hard- slow starts and try to moderate stops
and assist the cruise in hill climbs.. Still I was happy with it also!
My benefit is the light load, since I bought out of dealer stock, I got
what I got i believe I would have preferred different rear end and eco
but if i can get to 15 that be ok

EcoBoost option provide more power, but most data suggest that when engines are roughly the same size (similar displacement) that the standard non-turbo (naturally aspirated) engine does at least as good in fuel economy. For EcoBoost to outperform in fuel economy, it has to be considerably smaller in displacement.

EcoBoost no doubt has more power, but I doubt it will get better MPGs on average when both are similar displacement.

 

[Hubcappizza]

back road under 62

Hubcappizza,

What would really be telling is if you made the same trip again, but keeping it at around 65.

Semper Fi

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..

 

[star gazer]

Speed kills

 

[Chance]

Speed kills

Not as bad as 4.10 versus 3.31.



That is excellent for such a large van. Arguably one of the most economical drivetrains to own if more power or towing is not needed.