19th May 2009, 15:49
Well, I don't know what you were doing wrong, but I routinely get 23-25 mpg on the highway in my 4.0 L SOHC V-6 Explorer Sport with 5-speed automatic, with the cruise set at 65 mph. Even better mpg if I'm on state and county highways doing 55 mph. I know you don't want to accept it, but that's how it is.
19th May 2009, 22:55
Our carbureted Ford V-8's actually got slightly better mpg than our later fuel-injected models.
20th May 2009, 11:18
Believe me, I'd LOVE to get the outrageous mileage figures I see posted for Ford V-8's. It would have saved us a TON of money. Our 2001 4.0 V-6 Explorer Sport simply didn't deliver in the mileage department. It's also not a matter of driving style, as we always took trips on the interstate with the cruise set at 5 mph over the speed limits. Absolute top mileage ever recorded was 19.8. The car was meticulously maintained, as are all our cars. I have no idea what you can "do wrong" with an automatic with the cruise set on 65 on an interstate highway. All you do is sit there and watch the scenery go by. The in-town mileage was somewhere between 14-16 most of the time, which was right in line with the EPA estimates.
I think maybe people in colder climates may get better mpg. (Cars perform better in cold and damp due to the denser air). The best mileage any V-8 Ford we ever had got was 22mpg highway. That was a 1973 Maverick my nephew owned.
21st May 2009, 19:07
Actually the exact opposite is true. Cars get better mileage in warmer temperatures. I always notice a significant drop in mileage in the winter months.
22nd May 2009, 14:08
Cars do get better mileage when it's warm. My mileage has jumped from 18 or 19mpg back up to 21mpg since it has gotten warmer. I live in the south so winters aren't just really cold.
The fact is that with colder temperatures, the air is denser so you get what seems to be BETTER PERFORMANCE or acceleration. The denser the air the more fuel used. The car will still try to maintain a 14.7/1 air/fuel ratio.
22nd May 2009, 16:22
I think that extra 5 mph could be part of the problem. It seems like mileage really starts to drop off fast once you get over 2,000 rpm's, and that is right about where 65 mph is. Push it up to 2,500 rpm's, and that could have been the difference between you getting just under 20 mpg, and me getting 23 mpg.
Also, I don't know what gear ratios were available, or if there is some other difference between a 2001 and 2002.
Between the three Explorers we've had at work as company cars, I have driven four generations of them: 1997, 2002, 2005, and 2009. They have definitely gotten better with each design.
The 1997 was a puddle jumper, very under-powered with the 4.0 L V-6 pushrod engine, and poor mileage; I would rave about my 2002 with the 4.0 L SOHC; the 2005 was smooth riding and dependable, getting 24 mpg on the highway with a 4.0 L SOHC; the 2009 is a fabulous vehicle -- quiet, comfortable, good mileage, really nice, and also with the 4.0 L. Maybe you ought to consider another Ford Explorer.
22nd May 2009, 23:50
"Cars get better mileage in warmer temperatures."
Yes, that is true. But airplane jet engines are more efficient at high altitude due to the colder air. That is a big reason why they fly airplanes so high. Cars are different - lots more mechanical pieces in the drive train that have lower friction losses when warm. I suppose there are other reasons too.
23rd May 2009, 21:39
"Maybe you ought to consider another Ford Explorer.'
Yes, we will definitely consider another Explorer. Since posting my previous comment I have spoken with two owners of newer (2006 and 2007) Explorers and both say their mileage is over 22 on the highway. We LOVE Fords and I have great respect for the fact that Ford now matches or beats Toyota and Honda in reliability. We are also happy that Ford is the only one of the Big Three not facing bankruptcy. We are very happy with our 2006 Fusion and 2007 Mustang. When it's time for another SUV (if ever) the Explorer will be on our list of test-drives.
28th May 2009, 01:04
I'm still waiting to see the huge class action lawsuit brought against Ford over Mustangs getting 5-10 MPG below advertised Fuel economy. Where are the other hundreds of thousands if not millions of people suing Ford because of the 5.0 and 4.6 V8 only getting 15 MPG highway? All the Crown Victoria, Mustang, Grand Marquis, and Town Car owners out there since 1979? If the V8 Mustang or even Crown Victoria was that terrible on fuel, no one would buy them, or the other cars I mentioned, and Ford would have long been put out of business. Yet they continue sell, easily meeting if not exceeding their 15 City/ 23 MPG highway figures.
My car is a 2008 GT with a manual transmission and 3.55 rears. Unless it is a extremely windy day or I'm driving like a maniac, my car has no trouble getting well over 23 MPG highway on long trips, at constant speeds over 70 MPH. If you can't drive efficiently like the thousands upon thousands of us getting well over 20 MPG on the highway with a V8 Mustang, the problem is not your engine.
28th May 2009, 01:11
When I owned my 2006 Nissan Altima 3.5 SE, I had no problem beating the 2005 and newer V6 Mustang from a stoplight. And I made a point of doing it, often. All while getting better fuel economy in a car that was faster, better handling and more economical than the V6 Mustang.
There are plenty of other people who own V6 Altimas, Accords, and Camrys as well who enjoy humiliating slow uneconomical and unrefined V6 Mustangs.
28th May 2009, 11:35
I hardly think V-6 Mustang owners are going to be intimidated by a dowdy 4-door sedan like the Altima or Camry, regardless of what it might have under the hood.
29th May 2009, 09:36
That's what made smoking V6 Mustangs even more fun in the Nissan. Kids who drive V6 Mustangs think they've really got something, and then to be eaten alive by some sleeper family car adds insult to injury.
My Altima was anything but dowdy. 250 HP/ 250 lbs of torque in a car that barely weighs 3000 lbs. Not to mention it corners and handles like it's on rails, better than the GT and far, far better than the V6 Mustang. The Mustang V6 is slow and outdated, and gets mediocre if not poor fuel mileage for a 6-cyl. And the Altima was capable easily of 28 MPG highway, sometimes over 30. A V6 Mustang is lucky if it can manage 26 MPG highway, a V8, 23, 24 or 25 on a real good day.
While in the Army in Germany, I owned a 1984 BMW 525e (2.8 liter inline 6) 5 speed that was capable of 28 MPG or more at any speed under 90 MPH.
At least the GT can take of like a rocket, handles better and corners better than the V6 Mustang. All while getting only 1 to 2 less MPG on the highway.
18th May 2009, 12:14
It actually wasn't true then, and isn't now. You can fill the tank full without doing any harm. But yes, higher temperatures DO cause fuel to expand, but even then unless you park the car immediately after filling it there is still no problem. Just driving a mile or so will lower the level enough to prevent it from expanding too much.