armadamaster Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 On Yahoo a couple days back: Thanks, Yahoo. :chairshot: BTW, now Yahoo has advertised the Panthers more in the last five years than Ford has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Everyone that has one says they get 30MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Everyone that has one says they get 30MPG. Downhill, with a Category 5 hurricane as a tailwind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milstar 04 Sport Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) Downhill, with a Category 5 hurricane as a tailwind. My 2000 CV, got 27 to 29 MPG, driving on the freeway between Slum Bernardino and Vandenberg AFB, CA. My 2004 CV Sport, got 24 to 26 MPG, driving the same route. THe difference is in going to Vandenberg, Vs returning from Vandenberg to Slum Bernardino. I attribute the mileage difference due to many hills on State Route 1, when going to Vandenberg. The return trip was basically down hill on State Route 1. An interesting note is that if I drove the 2000 CV on the freeways, in the Los Angeles basin, it would get 28 to 30.5 MPG. The 2004 Sport would get 25 to 27 MPG. The 2000 CV had 2.76 rear axle ratio, and the 2004 CV Sport has 3.27, so one would expect to get better gas mileage in the 2000. In late 2004, the 2000 CV was wrecked, in the hills outside of Vandenberg. I had a left front blowout on SR 1, and entered into the dirt. I basically lost control of the car, and ended up in the hills. According to eye-wittiness's the car rolled over, and also went end over end. I walked from the accident to the curb and sat down on the highway. The CHP officer told me that when he got the call, he expected to see a body bag laying out for me. Instead, I was rushed to the hospital and had numerious X-rays, to include an MRI scan, and they could find nothing wrong with me. I walked from the hospital. During the next three months, that same area claimed the lives of three people. I had been seeing a doctor for a pinched nerve, and the accident fixed that problem in less then two weeks. Edited June 30, 2009 by Milstar 04 Sport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) My 2000 CV, got 27 to 29 MPG, driving on the freeway between Slum Bernardino and Vandenberg AFB, CA. My 2004 CV Sport, got 24 to 26 MPG, driving the same route. To be blunt, I don't believe you. Not when the EPA has the 2000 Crown Victoria at 23 MPG highway. And I assume that you won't drive exclusively on the highway (no one drives 100% highway), which means that the mileage is actually substantially worse than that. (The six 2000 Crown Victoria drivers who actually enter their mileage estimates with the EPA average out to the EPA estimate.) 2000 Crown Victoria EPA Numbers Edited June 30, 2009 by nelsonlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 To be blunt, I don't believe you. Not when the EPA has the 2000 Crown Victoria at 23 MPG highway. And I assume that you won't drive exclusively on the highway (no one drives 100% highway), which means that the mileage is actually substantially worse than that. (The six 2000 Crown Victoria drivers who actually enter their mileage estimates with the EPA average out to the EPA estimate.) 2000 Crown Victoria EPA Numbers Well we all know the EPA is always right. Maybe you can believe this, there is a thread over at CVN right now someone just put up talking about their 2008 MGM rental knocking down 28 MPG on their vacation: CVN Search the forums and you'll find other CV, GM, and TC owners with multiple reports of over 25+ MPG out of theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 To be blunt, I don't believe you. Not when the EPA has the 2000 Crown Victoria at 23 MPG highway. And I assume that you won't drive exclusively on the highway (no one drives 100% highway), which means that the mileage is actually substantially worse than that. (The six 2000 Crown Victoria drivers who actually enter their mileage estimates with the EPA average out to the EPA estimate.) 2000 Crown Victoria EPA Numbers The quote was: My 2000 CV, got 27 to 29 MPG, driving on the freeway... That means is was driving freeway. And it is quite possible to beat the EPA numbers. Hell, our Flex is rated at 22 and we saw a solid 23.6 on a trip to Nebraska from central Missouri at about 75MPH. Had we driven closer to 60, I'm sure we could have topped 25, but I didn't want to spend that much time in the car. So, don't knock it till you try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Well we all know the EPA is always right. Maybe you can believe this, there is a thread over at CVN right now someone just put up talking about their 2008 MGM rental knocking down 28 MPG on their vacation: CVN Search the forums and you'll find other CV, GM, and TC owners with multiple reports of over 25+ MPG out of theirs. And nobody on fan forums ever exaggerates about the vehicles they like. Nah. Nobody here has ever stretched the truth about their Ford I'm sure. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) And nobody on fan forums ever exaggerates about the vehicles they like. Nah. Nobody here has ever stretched the truth about their Ford I'm sure. :rolleyes: What are you talking about...no one exaggerates on here?!!?!? I really mean it when I say my 5.4 F150 makes 375 RWHP with just an exhaust and tune. Plus I get 25.672 MPG. Only 23.180 towing my travel trailer though! :lol: Edited June 30, 2009 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) That means is was driving freeway. And it is quite possible to beat the EPA numbers. Hell, our Flex is rated at 22 and we saw a solid 23.6 on a trip to Nebraska from central Missouri at about 75MPH. Had we driven closer to 60, I'm sure we could have topped 25, but I didn't want to spend that much time in the car. So, don't knock it till you try it! Obviously, it's possible to beat the EPA estimate, and certainly, a 23.6 over 22 is just a less-than-10% better than EPA estimate -- which I can buy. You were claiming that your Crown Victoria was doing, effectively, over 25% than EPA estimate on a round trip, which I found, again, to be blunt, not credible. (Yes, I do know that hypermiling techniques can work for large cars as well as for small ones. But it would be disingenuous to use hypermiled numbers to claim "and my Crown Victoria is just as fuel-efficient as that small vehicle!" since that smaller vehicle, using the same techniques, will get even higher mileage. It would be like claiming that a kid wearing a "body suit" can swim just as fast as Michael Phelps weighed down with lead weights.) Edited June 30, 2009 by nelsonlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Obviously, it's possible to beat the EPA estimate, and certainly, a 23.6 over 22 is just a less-than-10% better than EPA estimate -- which I can buy. You were claiming that your Crown Victoria was doing, effectively, over 25% than EPA estimate on a round trip, which I found, again, to be blunt, not credible. (Yes, I do know that hypermiling techniques can work for large cars as well as for small ones. But it would be disingenuous to use hypermiled numbers to claim "and my Crown Victoria is just as fuel-efficient as that small vehicle!" since that smaller vehicle, using the same techniques, will get even higher mileage. It would be like claiming that a kid wearing a "body suit" can swim just as fast as Michael Phelps weighed down with lead weights.) It wasn't my CV...I was just trying to show that it is plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) It wasn't my CV...I was just trying to show that it is plausible. Sorry. I wasn't reading carefully. But I'll still say it's not plausible. In fact, I'll say that it comes close to being not possible. Edited June 30, 2009 by nelsonlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Downhill, with a Category 5 hurricane as a tailwind. Wrong. Using Mobil 1 also does the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Wrong. Using Mobil 1 also does the trick. Thought it would be Amsoil and a Tornado. Remember this joke of a thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Thought it would be Amsoil and a Tornado. Remember this joke of a thing? Never tried it. Just another gimmicky thing that the late Billy Mays never plugged on an infomercial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 To be blunt, I don't believe you. Not when the EPA has the 2000 Crown Victoria at 23 MPG highway. And I assume that you won't drive exclusively on the highway (no one drives 100% highway), which means that the mileage is actually substantially worse than that. (The six 2000 Crown Victoria drivers who actually enter their mileage estimates with the EPA average out to the EPA estimate.) 2000 Crown Victoria EPA Numbers I do! I last week I took a trip to Windber PA from Rochester NY. Mostly highway, my 2004 P71 got 24 on the way down and 26 on the return trip. Kept it at 68mph for the most part. Very pleased! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I do! I last week I took a trip to Windber PA from Rochester NY. Mostly highway, my 2004 P71 got 24 on the way down and 26 on the return trip. Kept it at 68mph for the most part. Very pleased! 24 and 26 are quite a far cry from the claims of 30-ish though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 24 and 26 are quite a far cry from the claims of 30-ish though. If you do about 60 mph, then the 30 MPG comes into play. Anything over 65 MPH is just wasting gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I do! I last week I took a trip to Windber PA from Rochester NY. Mostly highway, my 2004 P71 got 24 on the way down and 26 on the return trip. Kept it at 68mph for the most part. Very pleased! I don't doubt that 24-26 is possible. (I have gotten that myself with my mother's 2004, on good days.) But that user alleged 27-29, which is another 15% more than what you got -- with a car that is four years older. I still don't believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2004BlackBird Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I don't doubt that 24-26 is possible. (I have gotten that myself with my mother's 2004, on good days.) But that user alleged 27-29, which is another 15% more than what you got -- with a car that is four years older. I still don't believe it. Long time lurker ... recent member ... first time poster. Thought I might have something to add here from my own experience with CVs. I have owned 4 Crown Vicks, all purchased new. They were a '93, '94, '97 and a 2002 which my wife still drives daily. It now has a 111,000 miles and will get a legitimate 27.5 HIGHWAY miles per gallon here in 'no hill' Florida - even with the #$#@ 'gasahol' that you can only buy here now. NONE of the 4 CVs ever approached 30 MPG on the highway, no matter what I did. As another poster alluded, best mileage is obtained about 70 MPH. I now run 0W-30 Amsoil exlusively in all my vehicles and have been for several years. It helped mileage about 1 mpg on the Excursion and 1.5 on the 2002 CV. Just about offsets the crappy gas. (Others, 2000 V-10 Excursion, 2004 T-Bird, all purchased new) In many ways the '93 was as good as any of them, It would also get 27.5 MPG (highway) and I was running petroleum based 10W-30 at the time. The '94 would not even get 26 MPG highway, the 97 got about 26.5 highway. The all-around was consistantly about 4 mpg less than highway mileage on all of them. Incidentally, drove an MKS the other day. Wife's next car will be one of those or a 2010 Taurus. Just our experience, FWIW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 If you do about 60 mph, then the 30 MPG comes into play. Anything over 65 MPH is just wasting gas. Driving 60 on a highway around here is a surefire way to get yourself run off the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) I don't doubt that 24-26 is possible. (I have gotten that myself with my mother's 2004, on good days.) But that user alleged 27-29, which is another 15% more than what you got -- with a car that is four years older. I still don't believe it. Not sure what gears he has in his car. My P71 has 3.25:1. So the MPG is a pleasant surprise for me. The trip through PA was mostly mountianious which did impact the fuel consumption. I think the lack of cruise really was a benefit in this type of topography, as I'm more willing than the computer to let speed bleed off up the hills. Took a trip last January to Albany, and got 25 mpg one way, and 28 mpg the other. Again, I kept it down to 68 mph. This was all hwy and flat for the most part. As much as I'm impressed with the CV, it doesn't come close to my old Lincoln LSV8. That car got 29mpg @ 78mph. I didn't believe it at first, (thought the trip computer was wrong). Measured at the pump, and it was dead on. That car did that on four 1300 mile trips to SC and back. Edited July 6, 2009 by Hemiman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wchain Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 The 2000 CV had 2.76 rear axle ratio, and the 2004 CV Sport has 3.27, so one would expect to get better gas mileage in the 2000. My P71 has 3.25:1. 98+ Vics were either 2.73, 3.27, or 3.55. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 98+ Vics were either 2.73, 3.27, or 3.55. Good catch! Meant 3.27:1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIAMI-DADE Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 When I drive from Miami to NYC [05 CV] I get between 24-26 mpg...That doing a steady 70..The a/c is left on automatic all the time.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.