Elf911 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 5.4 supercharged? Sorry for the sidenote lol nice car! Had a Buick Grand National think it had about a 8.0 compression ratio stock lol that in a 3.8 liter V6 with only 12 psi stock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elf911 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Just read your signature. 97 was a 5.0 or 4.6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elf911 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 "Turbochargers pump extra air into the engine to deliver more power. But all engines have to be operated at a very specific air-to-fuel ratio. So this extra air has to be augmented with extra fuel, which may offset any savings from shrinking engine sizes" from Consumer Reports add on ecoboost motors.... http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims.html Still love my 2.0 turbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Just read your signature. 97 was a 5.0 or 4.6? Second year of the 4.6 in the Mustang. Mine's an aluminum 4.6 DOHC with a Vortech Si-Trim @ 10.5 psi....putting around 470-475 HP at the wheels now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 "Turbochargers pump extra air into the engine to deliver more power. But all engines have to be operated at a very specific air-to-fuel ratio. So this extra air has to be augmented with extra fuel, which may offset any savings from shrinking engine sizes" from Consumer Reports add on ecoboost motors.... http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims.html Still love my 2.0 turbo The point of Ecoboost isn't really to burn less fuel for its displacement though. It's to burn about as much fuel while making the same as or more power than a larger displacement engine. I think CR is missing the point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elf911 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Agreed performance should always be in mind IMO lighter motor with more power. Btw why have so many people been mentioning here and elsewhere that the escape gets less MPG in cold weather? I figured the colder air would help a turbo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Agreed performance should always be in mind IMO lighter motor with more power. Btw why have so many people been mentioning here and elsewhere that the escape gets less MPG in cold weather? I figured the colder air would help a turbo? While the cooler air is generally better for performance in terms of power output, it can zap fuel economy some as a result. Denser, cooler air requires more fuel to maintain the same air/fuel ratio. It's that along with the combo of crappier fuel being available in winter time in a lot of cold climate states that likely adds to the problem. Plus it was mentioned the impacts remote start can have on overall fuel economy if used regularly, which is only typically during cold weather also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elf911 Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Very true but I can say when my fiancé isn't using the car I don't usually remote start probably will in the summer with a black leather interior but it does warm up very quickly for a 4 cylinder motor. Btw Nick your my new favorite member on here Lol! Know what your saying and nice thank you! Great mod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryG Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Agreed performance should always be in mind IMO lighter motor with more power. Btw why have so many people been mentioning here and elsewhere that the escape gets less MPG in cold weather? I figured the colder air would help a turbo? At http://www.cleanmpg.com/ we have a 3 month competition all year around with any type of car or truck to win the best percentage above the rated EPA for our vehicles. The top drivers get well over 200% of their combined (city/highway) EPA rating. Living in South Florida, I've won a few competitions just because of my warmer winters and the colder winters north of up north. Drivers getting near 260% of EPA during the summer months, but drop as much as 200% of EPA during the winter. It's well documented on that site how cold weather effects MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schield Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Agreed performance should always be in mind IMO lighter motor with more power. Btw why have so many people been mentioning here and elsewhere that the escape gets less MPG in cold weather? I figured the colder air would help a turbo? Colder air is denser air. This is why at increased elevation performance suffers. The engine will be more powerful at colder temperatures. The catch is that the computer will adjust many factors within the engine to warm the car up, etc etc. The engine oil is more viscous, which increases internal friction. Think where there are additional fluids... In the transmission. The same thing applies. Last, the rolling resistance of tires increases in cool weather. So combining everything together cold weather is a net negative on fuel economy. Summer and winter gas have a different Reid Vapor Pressure mandated by the EPA. Winter gas has more butane (cheaper), and it isn't sufficiently warm enough to evaporate it. It all comes down to air quality. The difference in energy is around 1.7%. For our vehicles this is a difference of half a mile per gallon. In the end, winter gas has a minimal impact on economy, powertrain losses are the major culprit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtenthusiast Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 There is a reason why there are 2 active, seperate threads concerning Ecoboost engines fuel mileage discrepencies for both Fusion and Escape. And there have been several threads here and elsewhere about low fuel economy on the F-150 EcoBoost. In the real world, with the variables I described earlier, have a greater effect on these motors, in particular in devation from EPA numbers. The numbers are in fact achievable. The problem is both the EPA testing is outdated and that Ford, rightfully so, touts this as an ECO engine so people think they should automatically hit the numbers in all conditions. What I am trying to say there is more potential devation between meeting EPA numbers and what people are actually experiencing on the EcoBoost engine: they can be very efficient in ideal conditions, and also very inefficient taking consideration into many driving factors. A naturally asperated engine, in most instances, has less potential for such a large gap in MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porthos Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 Well apparently Consumer Reports is taking notice (although they are still report significantly high mileage than I am getting): http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims.html Also, the same lawyers that have filed a class action regarding the mileage claims in the Fusion Hybrid & C-Max are now looking to file on behalf of Fusion & Escape owners for false MPG Claims. I'm aware of Hyundai's problem, but there is also post from others here that are saying they are getting much better MPG in their new Escape 2.0 AWD. The window sticker also has a disclaimer that says "Your Mileage may vary". Also, "Your Mileage may vary" is only applicable if a reasonable person would assume that it is an average variance. Imagine if a company could simply put a statement on any claim they made that said "what you are paying for may be different than what we claim." You can't absolve yourself of responsibility for a statement by saying "I might be lying" when you enter into a contract. Courts have routinely thrown out such disclaimers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Also, "Your Mileage may vary" is only applicable if a reasonable person would assume that it is an average variance. Imagine if a company could simply put a statement on any claim they made that said "what you are paying for may be different than what we claim." You can't absolve yourself of responsibility for a statement by saying "I might be lying" when you enter into a contract. Courts have routinely thrown out such disclaimers. The problem is Ford is required by LAW to post the EPA mileage regardless of how a particular driver may drive and Ford has no control over either one. The old window stickers had a range of mpg that could be expected but it looks like they removed it. What Ford is saying is that IF you drive exactly like the EPA test cycle this is the mileage you can expect. Nothing more. And it's REQUIRED by LAW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapism Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 What I am trying to say there is more potential devation between meeting EPA numbers and what people are actually experiencing on the EcoBoost engine: they can be very efficient in ideal conditions, and also very inefficient taking consideration into many driving factors. A naturally asperated engine, in most instances, has less potential for such a large gap in MPG. So true. I drove my Toyota rav4 like a bat out of hell and the mileage didn't drop off like my Escape would if I drove it the same way. But at least I would get to my destination a lot faster in the Escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Very true but I can say when my fiancé isn't using the car I don't usually remote start probably will in the summer with a black leather interior but it does warm up very quickly for a 4 cylinder motor. Btw Nick your my new favorite member on here Lol! Know what your saying and nice thank you! Great mod Thanks! Always enjoyable having actual discussions with others instead of arguments. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazzel Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I feel so relieved that I purchased the same car that all you experts purchased Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howie411 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Interesting article. - http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-050100955.html The Ford Escape 2.0L made the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elf911 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Interesting article. - http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-050100955.html]http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-050100955.html[/url] The Ford Escape 2.0L made the list. Yep posted this earlier on page 3 I think. Btw I noticed the Eco part on the display between the tach and speedo. Apparently my speed is all green (I'm surprised! LOL) but the anticipation is horrible. Guessing that's New York City for you. All lights and stop signs so I can't "transition" well because its all stop and go. P.S. Nick appreciate the reply Edited February 6, 2013 by Elf911 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryG Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Looks like my original test drive of the '12 Explorer Limited 2.0L EcoBoost was right on according to CR. I'm very happy with my '11 Explorer Limited 3.5L mileage and performance now that I've compared it to the 2.0L Ecoboost. I owned an older V6 Explorer and the V8 Explorer and the V8 got better mileage than the old V6. I really was afraid of ordering the '11 Explorer with the V6, but it prove to be the right choice after all. Oh, and it pulls my boat just fine and no problem with the FWD pulling the boat out of the ramp. I have the automatic/manual transmission, but find keeping it in auto gets me better mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Looks like my original test drive of the '12 Explorer Limited 2.0L EcoBoost was right on according to CR. I'm very happy with my '11 Explorer Limited 3.5L mileage and performance now that I've compared it to the 2.0L Ecoboost. I owned an older V6 Explorer and the V8 Explorer and the V8 got better mileage than the old V6. I really was afraid of ordering the '11 Explorer with the V6, but it prove to be the right choice after all. Oh, and it pulls my boat just fine and no problem with the FWD pulling the boat out of the ramp. I have the automatic/manual transmission, but find keeping it in auto gets me better mileage. Was the V8 Explorer a 5.0 or a 4.6? You'd be the first person I ever knew with a 5.0 Explorer who said it got even decent fuel economy if that's what it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryG Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I didn't know the Explorer ever came with the 5.0L engine. I owned the first Explorers with the 4.0L V6 and later owned the '95 and '02 V8 4.6 Explorers. All for towing my boat and all with 2WD. I went with 371 ratio limited slip 2WD rear wheel drive and never had a problem at the boat ramps. The V8's got as good and better MPG than those V6 models. When I learn to hypermile, I could get a 22-23mpg tank in the '02 V8 Explorer. I've gotten as much as a 29.4mpg tank in my '11 Explorer V6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I didn't know the Explorer ever came with the 5.0L engine. I owned the first Explorers with the 4.0L V6 and later owned the '95 and '02 V8 4.6 Explorers. All for towing my boat and all with 2WD. I went with 371 ratio limited slip 2WD rear wheel drive and never had a problem at the boat ramps. The V8's got as good and better MPG than those V6 models. When I learn to hypermile, I could get a 22-23mpg tank in the '02 V8 Explorer. I've gotten as much as a 29.4mpg tank in my '11 Explorer V6. '95 Explorer V8 was a 5.0. I believe the 4.6 didn't go into the Explorer until somewhere around 2002. It was by far the last Ford in North America to use the 5.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryG Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 '95 Explorer V8 was a 5.0. I believe the 4.6 didn't go into the Explorer until somewhere around 2002. It was by far the last Ford in North America to use the 5.0. My '95 may have been a V6 also. The most I remember it had transmission problems. I know the model was a Limited with all others being the EB models. The earlier models came with the EB luggage I still own. Can't recall if my '89 EB Bronco came with the luggage, but I remember it being a 302ci AWD. We are talking 20 yrs ago. Now I can remember everything about my '67 GT 500. It came with a 428 with 2 Holly's. I took that engine out and put a '66 427 medium riser in it in 1974. Put in the solid 500 lift 324 duration Ford "B" cam, and had the engine balanced. It was the 202nd Shelby made out of 513 original GT 350's and 500's made at the LA Airport by Shelby American Inc. Also put a 457 Limited-Slip for the quarter mile races in it. Remember "Gone In 60 Seconds". Like to compare it to the newest GT 500 today with over 600hp. Bought the Shelby used in 1973 at its lowest value for $1750 and sold it with both engines in 1980 for $9200. I met my wife of 37 yrs just after I bought the Shelby, and we did a lot of street racing back then. Now I'm buying SUV's and driving like a hypermiler for the best MPG. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blockisle9 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 My MPG's for city driving for all of the vehicles I've owned below have been pretty close to the same 12-13 mpg City. Low 20's highway. 1994 Explorer XLT 4X4 4.0-liter V6 1997 Explorer XLT 4X4 4.0-liter SOHC V6 2002 Explorer XLT 4X4 4.0-liter SOHC V6 2005 Escape XLT 4X4 3.0-liter V6 2008 Edge Limited 4X4 3.5-liter V-6 My 2013 2.0 liter 4X4 Escape does a little better. I'm seeing 14-15 mpg City 26-27 Highway (I'm at 3500 miles) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SK360 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Our mileage is terrible too. 1.6 AWD. 6700 miles. She drives it 20 minutes to work every day via the highway and we average around 21mpg every time we fill up. Even on long highway trips we are in the 23-24mpg range at normal (70-75) speeds. We take my Corvette on long trips now, I can pull 28mpg@80mph easily. Edited February 8, 2013 by SK360 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.