How to get better Gas Mileage?

[alucy0210]

Thanks! that's new knowledge for me.

 

[LukerDooker]

...not sure if this was mentioned, but maybe dont use climate setting of Auto?
Auto uses heat and AC to maintain set temp.
Defrost also uses low AC, but AC will not lite up on MFT when defrost is active.

 

[pup5581]

warmer weather here should net me some better MPGs. Most of my travel now is around town so with the sport millage is pretty bad...but in stop and go it's to be expected

 

[Kiliona]

Kiliona you misread my post regarding carburettors. You misquoted me in your response, please reread to see what I actually said.

Hope I can fill some gaps in your understanding, then you might be better prepared to dispel, instead of create, some myths, since that is what you are apparently aspiring to do in your posts.

Fuel is NOT “injected the same number of times every second regardless of anything you do”, as you wrote. While very imaginative, it's incongruent with the science of the workings of a Direct Injection engine.

The fuel is injected when the computer commands it to, which, depending on load and throttle position, and hundreds or thousands of other parameters, can be at various points during the compression, or intake strokes. It is also capable of delivering multiple pulses of fuel during an individual stroke. The control is extremely tight, measured in milliseconds. This will as a result directly vary the rpm to suit the conditions called for.

Not only is the pulse width of the fuel modulated, and its timing during the cycle, but the fuel pressure is tightly controlled as well, by more than an order of magnitude.

You also wrote “Engine rotation is not a factor of fuel economy, it is only load and throttle input”.

Once you are up to your cruising speed, if you are not in top gear (as I pointed out, the transmission will not allow you to lug the engine) then your engine is rotating more turns per mile than it needs to, as measured not only in revolutions per MINUTE on your tach, but more importantly to fuel mileage, revolutions per MILE. The drive ratios are carefully chosen to optimise fuel mileage. That is one of the main purposes of the top gearing in the transmission, to allow the engine to make fewer rotations per distance travelled and burn less fuel, if it were not so, why would they exist?

Also note that, under normal conditions, if you shift into a higher gear, and want to maintain the same speed, (if any throttle change is needed at all) it will require that you decrease your throttle, not increase it. If you maintained the same rpm and accelerator pressure, with an upshift you are now in a higher gear with the engine turning over fewer times to make the drive wheels turn at the same speed. Slightly lifting your foot from the accelerator at the right time can in fact cause an upshift, with no increase in speed. Most drivers do this subconsciously without even thinking about it, it's so seamless.

I was not trying to misquote you, just providing an example. My statement on carburetors was just me musing at where the rpms vs fuel usage idea may have come from, not me trying to misquote you, sorry for the misunderstanding.

My idea about "fuel is injected the same number of times per second" is imaginative, but it was not my imagination that came up with it, that is simply how a pulse width modulated system works. However you are correct about direct injection working differently, after looking up these new explorers in particular it's apparent they are not ONLY pulse width modulated (makes sense, like you said they are direct injected) and so My statements about PWM were inaccurate for this year of explorer (still accurate for earlier years which use miltiport among other things). So there's no misunderstanding, when I said "second" the "second" was just an arbitrary amount I was not implying fuel is only injected once a second or anything of the sort, only that there is a set interval between each pulse.

Back to the topic of the thread and why I felt the need to refute your comment to begin with, fuel usage is not a factor of engine rpm.

I have still yet to hear you give the reason why you feel rpm equates to fuel used, so I'm just going to assume that your reason is because the engine goes through combustion more times a minute at higher rpms.

This is true, combustion will happen more times per minute at higher rpms, but to burn fuel you also need to burn air (generally 14.7 units of air per 1 unit of fuel) and so if you raise the rpm, but leave air going into the engine the same, there'll be no change in fuel used, even if combustion happens more times (it'll just combust less air each revolution directly proportional to increased number of compustion cycles happening). If you lower rpms, but need to apply more throttle to maintain the same wheel speed, you are allowing more air into the engine (by opening the throttle) thus using more fuel.

My point is, as it was before, it is not ALWAYS a good idea to just "use the highest gear the computer will let you". In the example you gave of the driver letting off the throttle on an upshift to maintain road speed, that is completely correct that will result in less fuel used, but if a driver shifts up and finds themself having to apply more throttle (consciously or subconsciouly) they will use more fuel even being in a higher gear. This is because the higher gear results in less torque to the wheels, and in many situations this results in the driver needing to compensate for the loss of torque by applying throttle.

My point is, watch throttle input, ignore rpms. Sometimes less rpms are more efficient, sometimes more rpms are, the only way for you the driver to know is by how much air (thus fuel) you're letting into the engine by paying attention to your right foot, dont just assume that the highest gear possible will allows give the best gas mileage. Now it's more complicated than that since we havent REALLY discussed road speed or engine efficiency at different rpms, but let's ignore that for now since it is not nearly as big a factor.

Some examples - I have a 20 minute 45 mph road between my house and work, in my 92 explorer (3.73 gears, m50d, 31 inch tires) at 45 in fifth gear I require half throttle OR MORE to maintain 45 mph, however in 4th gear I have the torque to only use a quarter throttle. I've learned from practice that I get 3-5 more mpg's out of using 4th instead of fifth on this stretch of road.

"but kiliona" you're saying "That's because you're a dummy and put 31 inch tires without increasing rear end gear ratio!" good point, Im a dummy; however that case is the EXACT same in my 99 outback (stock). I get 18 mpg in fifth on that road, 20+ in fourth.

I get BETTER gas mileage in my 96 mustang with 4.10 gears in the rear end than with the stock (3.53s?). I get over 20 mpg now, and with stock gears I get under 20 driving the same, EVEN THOuGH the rpms are consistently higher (3.53/4.10 = .86 so I have 24 percent higher rpms at all times). If we want to get into efficiency, ask all the fox guys, SN95 mustangs with their overhead camshafts just dont make power low in the rpm range the powers all at the top of the range, and so at this 20 percent higher rpms im talking about the efficiency works out in such a way that the added power allows me to go further with less gasoline.

I AM trying to dispel myths, im glad you are as well. However in a thread about getting better gas mileage, I'd like to give advice that increases gas mileage and not decreases it. I believe, and know both in theory and in practice, staying in the highest gear your computer will let you be in by shifting to 6th whenever you can (even if you aren't "lugging" the engine) will LOWER gas mileage not increase it. a c6 corvette will do 0 to 150 mph in fifth gear (top gear UK amusingly proved this), yet common sense tells you that doesn't mean you should put it in fifth gear and leave the shifter there your entire ownership of the car in order to increase gas mileage, it simply wouldnt (plus itd ruin your clutch xD). I realize that is an extreme example, but the same theory applies there as to our discussion, but to a lesser extent.

Watch throttle input, not rpms, for that is what decides fuel used.

 

[markls8]

I do follow what you are saying about applying more throttle when upshifting, Kiliona, but I don't think that gets done in actual driving conditions in these strictly controlled engines. That might be because it falls outside the range that the transmission controller allows. I think a source of our discrepancies might be from us describing different technologies. I'm being fairly specific to the Eco-boost 3.5, but it likely applies to other equally sophisticated modern engines.

Note that there are engine load conditions where fuel is cutoff completely and where a very lean burn happens, but besides being transient, these don't happen at the constant speeds we're discussing.

Here's what I tried, maybe you, or others can too, and see if you get a different result...

With the display showing instantaneous MPG, at a constant speed, on a flat level road, shift down manually with the left paddle and watch the MPG readout. You can't go into M mode because you will lose the mpg display, but in D it will allow it for a short period before shifting back up, you can feel that and can get a reading before it does.

I won't work well in Cruise Control because the display gets toggled away.

I did this repeatedly, and at different speeds, you have to make sure you don't change the throttle input, because small changes make big mpg shifts up and down. In order to eliminate confirmation bias, I looked for any cases/ conditions where the mpg went up when I shifted down (in other words, I was trying to disprove my own hypothesis).

While the bar graph display is not accurate to read (the units are pretty wide apart) I couldn't find any case/ speed where the mpg went up when I went into a lower gear. I plan on trying some more when the traffic and conditions permit. Try it yourself and let us know what results you get.

 

[Kiliona]

I do follow what you are saying about applying more throttle when upshifting, Kiliona, but I don't think that gets done in actual driving conditions in these strictly controlled engines. That might be because it falls outside the range that the transmission controller allows. I think a source of our discrepancies might be from us describing different technologies. I'm being fairly specific to the Eco-boost 3.5, but it likely applies to other equally sophisticated modern engines.

Note that there are engine load conditions where fuel is cutoff completely and where a very lean burn happens, but besides being transient, these don't happen at the constant speeds we're discussing.

Here's what I tried, maybe you, or others can too, and see if you get a different result...

With the display showing instantaneous MPG, at a constant speed, on a flat level road, shift down manually with the left paddle and watch the MPG readout. You can't go into M mode because you will lose the mpg display, but in D it will allow it for a short period before shifting back up, you can feel that and can get a reading before it does.

I won't work well in Cruise Control because the display gets toggled away.

I did this repeatedly, and at different speeds, you have to make sure you don't change the throttle input, because small changes make big mpg shifts up and down. In order to eliminate confirmation bias, I looked for any cases/ conditions where the mpg went up when I shifted down (in other words, I was trying to disprove my own hypothesis).

While the bar graph display is not accurate to read (the units are pretty wide apart) I couldn't find any case/ speed where the mpg went up when I went into a lower gear. I plan on trying some more when the traffic and conditions permit. Try it yourself and let us know what results you get.

I would if I had an ecoboost x D my brother has an ecoboost escape but that's the closest we have.

Good to see the experimenting, and perhaps you're right, experimentation may show the ecoboost engine has enough torque that it doesn't care if it's in a high gear, it doesn't need the torque multiplication a lower gear provides. I don't know that's out of my realm of knowledge not owning the car.

Sorry for being such a pain, I just didn't want people leaving this thread thinking (even if this isn't exactly what you were saying, just didn't want it to come across this way) that being in the highest gear possible is always the best for gas mileage. Maybe a lot of the time, maybe when cruising at a constant speed (excluding the mountainous terrain of my home state idaho where downshifting is required often, even on the free-way), maybe on the ecoboost it may enjoy the highest gear... but not always.

And so if people read anything I've said (I know I know, I write novels worth of useless text ) just take away from it that the only way of knowing, as the driver, how much fuel is going through your engine (besides these fancy computer readouts) is by taking notice of how much throttle you're using. This can be confirmed by watching you're computer readout of mpg's and pressing the throttle, and will work in every circumstance in modern cars.

More throttle input = more fuel burned.

 

[LongbowApache]

Hello everyone... I'm new to the scene and just wanted to get a bit of info on how to possibly get a bit better gas mileage on a 2014 Ford Explorer II, V-6 3.5 liter engine? If anyone has any suggestions please let me know.... Thanks...

Mr. B.

 

[peterk9]

Hello everyone... I'm new to the scene and just wanted to get a bit of info on how to possibly get a bit better gas mileage on a 2014 Ford Explorer II, V-6 3.5 liter engine? If anyone has any suggestions please let me know.... Thanks...

Mr. B.

As per my PM, I have moved your post to this thread.

Peter

 

[LongbowApache]

The book is where I got the Explorer II part and I'm quite not sure why is says that, but nevertheless it's an Explorer 2014 w/3.5l V-6.

 

[peterk9]

Does it look like this? If so, it is either a Base, XLT, Limited or Sport. The name badge should be on the back liftgate.

Peter

 

[Blue1ce]

Something tells me that the 16's should technically be more fuel efficient due to the new active shutter grille feature and some of the body changes they made that supposedly make the car more aerodynamic. Or at a minimum, the MPG gets closer to the EPA rated numbers compared to the 11-15's.

 

[peterk9]

Something tells me that the 16's should technically be more fuel efficient due to the new active shutter grille feature and some of the body changes they made that supposedly make the car more aerodynamic. Or at a minimum, the MPG gets closer to the EPA rated numbers compared to the 11-15's.

I have seen that lately the EPA numbers have come down. On the Canadian Limited 2011 model they showed 23/32 city/hwy. Now it shows 22/29. I believe this is because of more realistic testing. It may still be a stretch to attain those figures.

Peter

 

[Gablesdad]

5. Reduce as much unnecessary weight in the vehicle as possible.
best regards Plum

I'm trying my best but my diet doesn't seem to be working.

Peter[/QUOTE]

Dam, I thought I was the only one on these forums with a weight issue !

 

[peterk9]

I'm trying my best but my diet doesn't seem to be working.

Peter

Dam, I thought I was the only one on these forums with a weight issue ! [/QUOTE]Welcome to the Forum. :wavey:
No there are others! I'm also the source for most of the creaks and rattles in the cabin.

Peter

 

[Odrapnew]

I do follow what you are saying about applying more throttle when upshifting, Kiliona, but I don't think that gets done in actual driving conditions in these strictly controlled engines. That might be because it falls outside the range that the transmission controller allows. I think a source of our discrepancies might be from us describing different technologies. I'm being fairly specific to the Eco-boost 3.5, but it likely applies to other equally sophisticated modern engines.

Note that there are engine load conditions where fuel is cutoff completely and where a very lean burn happens, but besides being transient, these don't happen at the constant speeds we're discussing.

Here's what I tried, maybe you, or others can too, and see if you get a different result...

With the display showing instantaneous MPG, at a constant speed, on a flat level road, shift down manually with the left paddle and watch the MPG readout. You can't go into M mode because you will lose the mpg display, but in D it will allow it for a short period before shifting back up, you can feel that and can get a reading before it does.

I won't work well in Cruise Control because the display gets toggled away.

I did this repeatedly, and at different speeds, you have to make sure you don't change the throttle input, because small changes make big mpg shifts up and down. In order to eliminate confirmation bias, I looked for any cases/ conditions where the mpg went up when I shifted down (in other words, I was trying to disprove my own hypothesis).

While the bar graph display is not accurate to read (the units are pretty wide apart) I couldn't find any case/ speed where the mpg went up when I went into a lower gear. I plan on trying some more when the traffic and conditions permit. Try it yourself and let us know what results you get.

I don't know about yours, but I can go into manual mode in my '14 Sport and still have the instantaneous MPG readout, just have to toggle back through the left dash display. BTW, I did try this and saw a reduction in MPG when going 60MPH when shifting down a gear. I didn't try lower speeds though.

 

[Napalm]

wow.

OK for atleast the 12-16 years (and I suspect from the 09- also)

the car was designed to hit it's max MPG's between 65 and 70 mph. that's what 6th gear is for, that's where the engine map was leaned out, etc. all auto makers do this to some degree.

now with extra weight in the car - extra aero drag due to stuff on the roof etc - you're outside of it's zone.

airing up tires - sure put a little more in there if you want - but whatever you do - don't roll around with your tires always at max pressure - you will be losing potential traction.

oil - honestly motorcraft and other syn blend 5-20 is about as thin and slick as you can deal with. Yes you can use AMSOIL, or Mobil 1 or Castrol syn. I recently have been using castrol syn blend because it's cheap. but it won't affect your numbers much if at all. so I wouldn't focus on that unless you're modding for power and need protection.

cleanliness - another secondary effect - keep the car clean and a decent polish on it. I highly recommend at least once in it's life - clay bar the car, use a good polish. then keep it clean - and spray down the underside occasionally.

door and window seals - another secondary effect but with age on the car check them for smoothness - fit and seal.

use the cruise control - the computer likes it

tuning - if you have a flex fuel 3.5 v6 - it's got a wide band of tolerance and there is some slop you could take out in the tune. However, if you drive more than say 3 states away regularly - then you might occasionally get some gas that the car won't like well. IE you took some of the tolerance away because in your area gas was typically 5% of less Ethanol - you're not 4 so states away and gas is 9% - you'll drop some MPG because the engine will run rich to compensate. Computer protecting itself.

different tires - major effect if you get the right ones. I know I don't like the Ventus tires that are on our 2016 - but I have no idea what I'll want to put on it - so that's a good thing to research.

Air fliter - intake mods - be careful with this - air flow - and compressible flow are easy to screw up. however there is room for some improvement. the stock air box and filter setup are geared toward 2 purposed - let in enough air volume to make intended HP/TQ ratings while not making crazy noise and oh by the way clean some dirt out of the air. So yes you can put a drop in (K&N or Green) and it might/should help some - you can mod the box or get a new tube system. those will increase the noise significantly - but don't expect major bumps in MPG or HP. My history has shown with some filter mods and filter box mods at most I get about 2-4mpg increase.

PCV catch can mods - this is a good idea - again if modded out for power. for typical DD use it's not the greatest thing and not all that necessary. HOWEVER, in a direct injection engine it has a secondary benefit - keeping those intake valves clean. And that might be worth the expense in the long run.

finally - don't expect too much out of your endeavors. and don't rely purely on the MPG indicators in the car. verify their number with actual fill up - miles to fill up calculations for cross check. yes the indicators should be pulling values direct from injector flow calculations in the engine computer - but they can get off kilter occasionally. OH and be aware of your surroundings - MPG goes done 2 whole MPG on a trip, might be because you were bucking a 20mph head wind most of the way.

 

[alex101]

Hi Guys,

I have Ford Explorer 2014 XLT.
Mileage: 250,000 km
We just completed our 250K servicing, changed chains, oil, filters etc.
It consumes now 12.5 L / 100 km. (18.8 mpg)

First 3 years we had consumption at around 10.5 - 11 L / 100 km.
I wonder if we could do any tuning ourselves or through dealer to reduce gas consumption?
I know that many people are tuning their Explorers to be more powerful and fast and consume more gas.
I am trying to do the opposite...
;-)

Any suggestions?

 

[peterk9]

^^ Your thread was merged with this existing on a similar topic. You may be surprised that your display readout is higher than what you are getting. I used the following to correct mine and bring it in line with what I am actually getting as figured out the old fashioned way. NOTE: It may not work on a 2014.
How to: - AFE Bias - How to correct your MPG readout/display

Peter

 

[Explorer Phil]

Speed is the biggest enemy. As the speedo moves up the gas gauge moves down.
Unfortunately there is no way to change the 3 blink signal. Many members, myself included, would agree 5 blinks it what it should be set at. 3 is too short.

According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:

- 3% less efficient at 60 mph
- 8% less efficient at 65 mph
- 17% less efficient at 70 mph
- 23% less efficient at 75 mph
- 28% less efficient at 80 mph
Mpg For Speed - Fuel Efficiency Vs. Speed

Peter

I changed my 2016 explorer turn signal from 3blinks to five blinks using Forscan. Check out the Forscan forums to see how it's done.

 

[peterk9]

I changed my 2016 explorer turn signal from 3blinks to five blinks using Forscan. Check out the Forscan forums to see how it's done.

Thanks Phil. I'm aware of the change but there was no mention on this Forum of ForScan 5 years ago when I posted.

Peter