3.5L Ecoboost Owners - What MPG are you getting? | Page 3 | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

3.5L Ecoboost Owners - What MPG are you getting?

Same could be said for many vehicles.

My mom had a 1991 Toyota Camry that got 45-50mpg on the highway. A new Camry gets 35ish. Even the newer hybrid "only" gets 40mpg.

What I've found on Fuelly is that the 5th gen has generally higher MPG vs. 2nd gen, especially if you are comparing similar engines(N/A V6 vs. N/A V6).
You also have to remember, the 5th gen explorer weighs more than the 2nd gen, so getting this beast moving takes more energy. Getting even similar city MPG in a vehicle that weights ~800lbs more is a definite improvement.

I think you need to go and actually weigh any 5th gen Explorer. They do not weigh 5300 pounds. The 1st and 2nd gen Explorers all weigh 4500-4700 pounds, actual weights. That's not the two door models, that's the normal sized 4dr's. My first 91 Explorer weighed 4700 pounds leaving a scrap yard in about 2000, my 98 Mercury weighed 4600lbs if I recall correctly, also from the same scrap yard in the early 2000's.

The full frame of a vehicle weighs a bunch, it adds a lot to the overall weight of the vehicle. I bet the 5th gens are under 4500 pounds.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Curb weight is shown as 4458 lbs.

Peter
 






Curb weight is shown as 4458 lbs.

Peter

I do not trust stickers on door jambs, or what a manual/book says about vehicle weights. Those are 95% of the time wrong, often very wrong. An actual weighing scale is the only proper reference for vehicle weights.
 






I think you need to go and actually weigh any 5th gen Explorer. They do not weigh 5300 pounds. The 1st and 2nd gen Explorers all weigh 4500-4700 pounds, actual weights. That's not the two door models, that's the normal sized 4dr's. My first 91 Explorer weighed 4700 pounds leaving a scrap yard in about 2000, my 98 Mercury weighed 4600lbs if I recall correctly, also from the same scrap yard in the early 2000's.

The full frame of a vehicle weighs a bunch, it adds a lot to the overall weight of the vehicle. I bet the 5th gens are under 4500 pounds.

Just going by Google(and Ford Fleet publication) for 2001 curb weight, which is always correct.;)
https://www.google.com/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US%3AIE-Address&biw=1600&bih=1047&ei=NLzQWs_XDcLBjwTF0ILwBg&q=2001+ford+explorer+4x4+curb+weight&oq=2001+ford+explorer+4x4+curb+weight&gs_l=psy-ab.3...19915.20693.0.20931.5.5.0.0.0.0.82.293.5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.Q5VA7WX34M0


https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/non-html/2001/exp14dcd.pdf

1991 Ford Explorer First Test - Motor Trend

As for 5th gen, here you go, actual weight of 2013 Sport with driver. Curb weight listed as 4700lbs, so actual weight is a couple hundred pounds more
Ran the Sport Friday - Bone stock 1/4 mile times & scale weight

Curb weight of 2016 Sport is ~4900 lbs, so potential for a 5100lbs actual.

It might not be 800lb difference, but still noticeable.
While the frame does add weight, the additional safety features, electronics...etc of the newer gen also add weight.

And, again, we're comparing a N/A V6(or V8) with 100+ horsepower and many torques less than the 3.5 Ecoboost. I believe the N/A V6 5th gens get better milage.
 






I'm sure someone has posted the actual weights of the 5th gen Explorers, on this forum. They do not weigh 5300lbs, 5200lbs, or 4900lbs. I say that's BS book specs and bad logic.

They likely weigh a few hundred more from added features, wires, components etc, than much older models. But they weigh a few hundred less from not having a steel perimeter frame. So my guess would be about 4500lbs actual weight, and I bet I'm closer than the books, links, and all other non-actual measurements.

I'm won't post again in this thread, no offense taken or meant, this is just a non productive subject at this point. Good day,
 






I'm sure someone has posted the actual weights of the 5th gen Explorers, on this forum. They do not weigh 5300lbs, 5200lbs, or 4900lbs. I say that's BS book specs and bad logic.

They likely weigh a few hundred more from added features, wires, components etc, than much older models. But they weigh a few hundred less from not having a steel perimeter frame. So my guess would be about 4500lbs actual weight, and I bet I'm closer than the books, links, and all other non-actual measurements.

I'm won't post again in this thread, no offense taken or meant, this is just a non productive subject at this point. Good day,

See link in my post above which has actual 2013 sport weight of over 5000lbs with driver.
 






Good points.

My 96' 2wd with a 5.0l is averaging 14-16ish mpg this winter depending on my right foots mood that week. This is not shabby considering the freezing temps, 30psi tire pressure, 90% of my winter driving is to work and back 12 miles away 35-55mph city stop and go, cheap 87 winter blend (more ethanol to resist freezing), colder air is denser air to travel through, etc. Summertime highway (road trip 65-75mph) it gets around 23mpg using non-ethanol fuel and 38psi tire pressure and without making a conscious effort to draft semi trucks. On a CAT scale, It weighed 4,450 (or close to that, can't remember exactly now) with a full tank and no spare (and a high top with old tv, vcr, rear stereo, gaming connections, rear 6x9). I had a 98' v8 2wd I got down to 4,260 without spare and 1/2 tank of gas.

The engines are smaller and more efficient on the 5th, but also a little more heavier from more gadget, safety features and more solid construction we can all agree. One thing I've noticed is the wheels keep getting larger and wider, which can also have a noticeable impact on mpg. I would like to know what the actual weight difference is between a 15" wheel with 235/75 (1996 OEM size) vs a 20" with 255/50 (2018 Sport OEM).

I wonder too how much more efficient these 5.0l could have gotten if they went the way Chevy did and focused on refining the tried-and-true small block pushrod motor. Aluminum block and heads instead of iron, more refined camshaft, timing and compression, lighter valvetrain, more aerodynamic underbelly or at least an added airdam and sideskirts, and a 4 or 5 speed auto as tough as a 4r70w with a .50 overdrive. 375-400hp, high 13 quarter mile, 28mpg at 70mph out of a 4,000lbs off-road capable suv with a 7,000lbs towing capacity would not be out of the question. With modern oils and filters, manufacturing and materials, it would be the first and last vehicle you'll ever need lasting 500,000 miles. I know for a fact the 4.6 crown vics that weigh 4,000lbs can rock out 28mpg on the highway.
But what would are economy and life be like without planned obsolescence and without newer and more expensive toys to play with every couple years.
 






See link in my post above which has actual 2013 sport weight of over 5000lbs with driver.
I've taken mine to the local landfill site several times and drive over a weigh scale. I don't think that even with a light load (yard waste) that it has read over 5000 lbs and I'm 240. I'll be sure to pay attention next time I go there.

Peter
 






Are people on here seriously expecting good mileage form a 5000 pound vehicle ? I think it's quite good for a vehicle this weight.
 






Are people on here seriously expecting good mileage form a 5000 pound vehicle ? I think it's quite good for a vehicle this weight.
Welcome to the Forum.:wave:
I think that people always want better mileage no matter what they're driving. For a vehicle that has just a few more aerodynamics than a brick, I'm satisfied with mine.

Peter
 






I am jealous of what you guys are getting MPG wise. My 2018 with over 1900 miles now is still horrible. I am tracking two tank fulls currently and the average is about 14.2 MPG. This is some highway and some back streets, nothing near gridlock at all on the two tanks. 20 MPG seems like a dream for me unless I drive it off a cliff when idling.
 






I am jealous of what you guys are getting MPG wise. My 2018 with over 1900 miles now is still horrible. I am tracking two tank fulls currently and the average is about 14.2 MPG. This is some highway and some back streets, nothing near gridlock at all on the two tanks. 20 MPG seems like a dream for me unless I drive it off a cliff when idling.
Are you going by the Instant Mileage Display or manual (paper/pencil) method? The display tends to be somewhat generous.

Peter
 






Are you going by the Instant Mileage Display or manual (paper/pencil) method? The display tends to be somewhat generous.

Peter
This tracking I am going by the display. Last time I really tracked it was on calculator and it hurt to see, display was saying something close to 13.5 whcih is bad enough but calc was coming up in the 12.7 range. I know the display is not the most honest.
 






This tracking I am going by the display. Last time I really tracked it was on calculator and it hurt to see, display was saying something close to 13.5 whcih is bad enough but calc was coming up in the 12.7 range. I know the display is not the most honest.
It may not be more encouraging but the Manual says a more reliable reading may result after 2-3k miles. That would seem to require quite an improvement based on other posts. If things don't improve around that time perhaps you may want to speak to your dealer to make sure nothing is dragging our out of specs.:dunno:

Peter
 






Can anyone tell me how much miles to the TANK they are getting with the 3.5L eco boost engines? Are you driving for a total of 250-300-350 miles between fill-ups? No matter how conservative I drive I barely get 300 miles to the tank
 






Can anyone tell me how much miles to the TANK they are getting with the 3.5L eco boost engines? Are you driving for a total of 250-300-350 miles between fill-ups? No matter how conservative I drive I barely get 300 miles to the tank
Welcome to the Forum.:wave:
Mine read 583 km to Empty after I my last fill-up. That works out to 362 miles but our gallon is approx. 20% larger so if you take 20% off that 362 it comes to almost 290 miles.
I usually fill up when the tank is down to the 3/4 mark. There are several posts in this thread that show what MPG owners are getting so you should be able to get an idea of what they would get on a tank. There are quite a few variables that go into figuring out MPG etc. Also, the dash readout on Instant MPG tends to be somewhat generous, meaning you are likely getting less than what it shows. Here is another thread you may want to check out; Explorer Gas Mileage - including Ecoboost

Peter
 






Thanks! I really appreciate your input.
 






Can anyone tell me how much miles to the TANK they are getting with the 3.5L eco boost engines? Are you driving for a total of 250-300-350 miles between fill-ups? No matter how conservative I drive I barely get 300 miles to the tank
After 25k miles my onboard MPG readout is 17.9, with about 80% city driving. You can see by that optimistic mpg reading that I get less than 300 miles on a tank.
We've taken two 1,500 mile trips, fully loaded, 3 adults, hot weather in mountainous terrain and the dash readout was 22 mpg for the overall trip.
 






I am getting 425 to 450 mile to a tank haven't done the math but the vechile says 24.6 mpg . Will say before I turned it I was only getting 250 to 260 to a tank.if your foot is in it after tune it is really bad 4 passes at the track I can use a quarter tank easy
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





I am getting 425 to 450 mile to a tank haven't done the math but the vechile says 24.6 mpg . Will say before I turned it I was only getting 250 to 260 to a tank.if your foot is in it after tune it is really bad 4 passes at the track I can use a quarter tank easy

I'm sorry, but your tune did not increase your mileage by 60%.
Your driving habits must have changed significantly as well.
 






Back
Top