Better Fuel Mileage (Help Please)

[1rainman]

I looked up the safety/crash test comparisons between old explorers from the 90s and the new ones. You can find the video footage on youtube. The new explorers are slightly safer by design. Yet the 90s ones in a front end crash about half of the front will be smashed in. A new explorer the front end will be disintegrated in the same crash.

The solid steel and such means that the vehicle will generally last longer and be stronger. I guess the plexiglass and soda can frame is made to absorb the impact of the crash by allowing itself to totally obliterate while the driver seat remains relatively safe. But what I like about a vehicle is that I don't have to worry about bumping into a curb and bending the frame in half as a result or have a shopping cart hit the door and have the plexiglass fold in as a result.

I actually had a Toyota Rav4 flip on me. It was an older one (I don't know 2003 or something). Yet it had the flimsy frame, plexiglass panels etc. It got really good gas mileage. Yet when I went fast around a curb it felt like it was tipping. I thought no, not possible. Well, I went speeding down a country rode, the wheel hit a steep drop off on the edge of the rode and it rolled into the ditch. The thing is it just had no weight to it being made the way it was. This actually caused a crash. The same thing when you get blown around by the wind on a highway because your car is light as a feather. To me most of these new cars are junk. Like I said I don't know much about the new explorers but I'm guessing the body is more robust on the 90s versions. It looks to be plexi/plastic paneling on the outside or else that really thin steel they use.

 

[1rainman]

Not higher octane gas. Gas from a name brand company like Shell gas or BP as opposed to some guy who bought his own gas station/chicken shack.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9011663&contentId=7022107

It's usually an extra penny or two a gallon, but sometimes its the same price as the cheapo gas stations.

 

[FIND]

We are getting a bit off topic here.

I haven't really looked at the new Explorers but I have drove a lot of new rental cars. The small and mid size cars are mostly made for midgets- very tiny. The Chevy Cruz was about six inches off the ground. I mean I'd hate to hit a pot hole or speed bumb in that car. The bodies are some kind of plexiglas that you can kick and bend in or else paper thin metal. And the frames are super thin steel or aluminum. By contrast a car from the 70s is like a tank with solid steel body and robust frames. Although the older cars rusted pretty bad.

No. Cars from the 70s are MUCH flimsier than cars from the 90s even. That Chevy Cruz you are bashing would destroy any land yacht from the 70s in a front end collision, and the driver of the Cruz would walk away. If you've ever taken apart a car from the 70s, you would know how much less structure there is in them than a modern car. The body panels are the same thickness of metal you see in today's cars too. More modern cars ARE made with crumple zones, and much more modern cars have to meet higher crash safety standards, despite also being made more rigid. This means they are MADE to crumple in an impact.

That said, what does it matter? In either situation you are talking about, they totaled the vehicles. The most important part is passenger comfort and safety, not how bent the body panels are.

Here's a 59 Bel Air vs an 09 Malibu. The Bel Air weighs 200 lbs less than the Malibu



I can't even understand though why you are comparing the interior space in compact sedans to that of a mid-size SUV though... Modern mid size and compact cars are much roomier than the ones from the 80s and early 90s. Have you ever driven a Ford Escort and a Ford Focus back to back? It is like the difference between sitting in a Miata and a superduty pickup.

Even in the 90s most of the cars were built pretty flimsy but I have been impressed with the construction of the old explorer. It had almost no rust when I bought it at 15 years old. The metal just looks strong and is solid. It's built like a truck. The new explorers are built like large cars (as are most SUVs now). The new ones do have more horsepower and probably better engines (hard to say how reliable they are because ford doesn't test stuff).

I'm really not sure where you are coming up with this stuff...

It's hard to believe that the new explorers are heavier given the emphasis on gas mileage of new cars. The government has raised the standards. The 98 that I have has a lot of extra weight that can be easily shed. The weight is 3,692 pounds. shedding 200 pounds reduces weight by about 5%. I believe I took more than 200 pounds off. I don't know what the spare tire weighed but that thing alone seemed close to 100 pounds. A 5% improvement in gas mileage= an extra 1 mpg. 5% is a lot. But also reducing drag helps by removing the racks on the top or any extra stuff on the hood. Trust me it does make a noticeable difference in mileage.

They are heavier, because of the increased emphasis on safety and because of the additional equipment built into them. Feel free to look it up if you don't believe me. Your spare tire doesn't even weigh 50lbs. A 5% reduction in weight would not equal a 5% increase in fuel mileage, there is a far more complicated relationship between the two. Removing the roof rack will not even make a dent in the aerodynamic profile of your truck. Things like big open wheel wells and the large flat back end add up to so much more drag than an aerodynamically designed roof rack do, that it would be akin to thinking you have made a brick more aerodynamic by turning it upside down. Minor weight reduction and minor aero improvements do very little for these trucks. To get improvements from aero, you need to do things like lower them and add front air dams that could be found on higher trim models. Weight? Well, weight is not really a significant factor until you remove quite a lot of it.

I got around 25 mpg on my 98 sport driving cross country through several states. Most people seem to get 20 mpg or so (which its rated at 20 or 21 highway). The biggest factor is keep the speed around 60 and avoid the brake. Higher speed will significantly reduce mileage (especially in a non-aerodynamic vehicle like this one). I have an old exaust (haven't replaced it yet) I just took weight off it, tuned it up, inflated the tires and drove slow. There is no cruise control so didn't use it.

And my best on my AWD V8 4 door explorer is 23 mpg averaging 65mph. I know of a guy on this forum who managed to squeeze better than 30mpg regularly out of his 4 door V6.

I also got A LOT better mpg using premium gas from BP or Shell. It's actually cheaper to buy premium gas. You save a penny on discount gas then end up buying twice as much in the long run so losing money. Some of these shady hindu type marts or redneck stops I don't know how they do it but the gas is "watered down" somehow and over a long trip I notice the difference right before my eyes. It will just suck down that cheap-o gas. Don't buy it.

Having worked for an Oil and Fuel company in the past, I can guarantee you that no one waters down their gas. I can also share some more disturbing news with you. Everyone buys their gas at the same place, and it is all the same gas. The Shell and BP fuel trucks pull up to the same pumps on the pipeline as anyone else. That's right, the gas at that Shell and BP station comes from the exact same source as the gas at the no name station down the road, and usually they are buying the same fuels. Most of the time, it is even the same trucks that deliver to both of them. What you are experiencing is a placebo effect.

Also, you probably shouldn't cite BP as a source for proof that their gas is better... What you are reading on their website is called ADVERTISING.

 

[obie]

Wait, Ford doesn't test stuff?

Ford tests everything. Some stuff might still slip by their testing, but that's the realities of mass producing complicated machines built with parts subject to human error from around the world. But hell, they test right down to the plating and torque values on the bolts they use. There isn't a single thing on any vehicle produced that teams of engineers and mechanics haven't gone over.

 

[colintrax]

Find that video in interesting

I figured the malibu would win... but holy crap. The driver of the Bel Air is way dead. Driver of the malibu, probably gonna be a little sore at work tomorrow.

 

[1rainman]

I'm not talking about safety I'm talking about built to last. The old cars prior to the 80s were disposable. They didn't last. typical car would be junker in five years, rarely on the road after 10 years. This was due mostly to the body's rusting out and lessly to mechanical problems. However the metal was thick. It rusted mostly because of the paint, primer etc. protecting the metal sucked. but back then the cars were heavy and stylish. Really they were too heavy and big time gas hogs. Anybody who has drove those old Buicks, Fords etc. know they were a lot more robust than modern cars. Yeah they were unsafe by today's standards. But I would say a car from the 60s or 70s with no rust and a good modern paint job and some modern parts under the hood would be an ideal car. I'd buy a totally rebuilt old car before a new one (only down side is the abysmal gas mileage, but newer engine technology etc. under the hood can fix that). As well the 90s was a good time, especially for SUVs. They were built to last. In the 80s and now since the late 2000s the name of the game has been cheap. Cheap sticker prices and cheap on gas. At least the 2000 cars look ok on the outside (the 80s had the ugliest cars with a few exceptions) Half the American cars seem made in asia which is why they are smaller- made for a typical five foot three Asian rather than a six foot tall American redneck to drive. 90s had the best SUVs.

Drive down the street in a totally revamped 67 chevy and then drive down the street in a 2013 chevy and tell me which one is going to turn heads. Which one is going to have people stop and tell you "I love your car man!". Yeah you will be safer in the new car... same with the 90s SUVs. They are "cooler" and tougher. Maybe not as safe but that's not my top concern.

 

[FIND]

Facts be damned, you have an opinion and you are sticking to it.

 

[obie]

It wasn't just the paint. Modern vehicles use galvanized steel and plastics/composites specifically to fight rust problems. Galvanized steel uses a zinc based coating to sacrificially protect the steel in the event of paint failure or scratches/chips through the entire coating. And obviously plastic doesn't rust.

Good example of modern safety engineering here: I was driving my 97 F150 in a construction zone. The car that was two ahead of me decided to slam on his brakes from 45 to 0 so he wouldn't hit a 1" bump in the road. The driver behind me coming down the hill was texting and slammed into my truck at at least 35 mph. He was driving a kia pieceofsomethingorother. All he did was bend my trailer wiring bracket and one of my safety chain brackets on the hitch. Didn't even dent the bumper. His car was totaled. Front end destroyed, radiator split, entire front suspension ripped apart, windshield in a million pieces. He had zero injuries, and I had horrible back pain for weeks. In this (and only this super specific situation) I would have rather been in the plastic kia.

Side track rant: I think it was so nice of every other driver to not even stop and just drive by us as fast as they could. Gotta love Americans sometimes.

 

[DROMAN01]

The G-Force computer chip I put on a Ford Edge. It did not help one bit. Just wasted money.

 

[1rainman]

I looked it up. The new Ford Explorers are heavier. The old sport I have is 3,600 pounds. So I still shaved off possibly 8% of body weight, but it's not only weight, also wind drag. I had the rear axle replaced with one from a junk yard, it's possible somehow that contributed to the improvement. Using BP gas I get about 25 mpg highway which is a lot more than I'm supposed to get.

I think the new explorers weight more in part because they are larger than the older ones and have heavier independent suspension along with more bells and whistles. My 98 Explorer sport is not much bigger than a large car. They don't even make the small model anymore and have beefed up size and seats over the years.

You also have sound dampening and structure in the frame for safety reasons. These things will protect the driver from impact, but not the vehicle. It's easier to damage the frame of a newer car compared to the old one.

You also can carry heavier loads, perform better off road etc. with the older explorers.

Really this explorer sport I have is nothing but a newer version of the ford bronco. Other than being older than dirt and problems associated with driving an old clunker I really like this truck and think they should bring back the bronco with its more truck like frame and off road capabilities, simple design, ruggedness etc.

The axle and basic frame on the vehicle is not excessively thick or heavy but it seems to be made with pretty solid metal compared to newer cars. Steel can be made with various mixtures of metal with iron being what creates the weight and strength. The newer cars seem to mix more and more aluminum or other light weight/weak stuff into the mix.

Just because you have more weight due to sound dampening, a DVD player, blue tooth, five seats, independent suspension, safety deflection etc. doesn't mean its more "rugged". I'm really weird in that I like something low tech and simple and that will last a long time. Really the Japanese seem to excel at this, although their vehicles are even more plastic than american ones.

Ford claims the little two door bronco style vehicles don't sell as well as the giant ones. I think they just make more money off the more expensive vehicles which is why they don't want to sell the little two doors. I think it would be cool to have a new little two door bronco style vehicle with very simple design and rugged heavy construction. If I bought a brand new SUV (if I had the money) I don't think I would get a Ford, even though I like the old Fords the new ones are just big luxury vehicles. For off roading jeep is about the only one making good off road SUVs now or for durable simplicity probably a Honda or Toyota or something.