Brown wire trick for 02 to 05 Explorers

[Flashflood]

Well this covers everything but it kind of fits here:

So I love everything (Well 98%) about my 03 Explorer 4WD 4.6 5R55s but the MPG.

I posted a couple of threads about my plan to add an old Borg Warned R10 overdrive.

I figured out how to mod the BW Overdrive to have a front yoke, and to run it as straight manual unit thus removing the electric solenoid, making it even smaller.

View attachment 429988

The biggest problem is they stuck the gas tank inside the rails and between it and the muffler there is very little room under there:

So now I am looking into replacing the BIG muffler with something smaller.

View attachment 429989

As "U" Joints need to have some deflection, I figure to move the overdrive to the right (or picture) so a smaller muffler will make room for it.

Suggestions are asked for.

I would like a little more noise but not much, a nice purr would be great.

PS a couple of other things I want to change:

The Cluster: I had a 02 and could see the gauges even in our BRIGHT AZ sun while wearing sunglasses, it was one of the things that seduced me into loving these trucks to only find the 03 cluster was “Improved” and made nearly invisible, SO I am combining a 02 cluster with a 03.

The modified one is the top one. Note the lower two and how brighter the lower one is the the one just above.

View attachment 429990

I HATE the Stuck up in the air ass end of these trucks, they look like an old cartoon after being kicked in the ass. Yes I know these are meant as being able go off road, but look under them and the front end and the rear end with its control arms REALLY limit the ground clearance.

So I did two things, I bought Bell Tech’s set of lowering springs (2” front 2.5” rear) and now it looks great, AND I proved these springs will work on a 4WD. That’s done.

View attachment 429991

The rear hatch, I read that a 06 hatch fits, gets rid of those crappy plastic panels.

View attachment 429992

Soften the front seats, even with the cloth seats they are still too harsh, when swapping the seats I noticed a web strap under the seat foam, I suspected it is a hardener system and wonder if anyone has removed it and gotten softer seat?

The seats in a 03 Vic P71 Cop Car are softer..And a little wider, better for long road trips, I really considered swapping in a set.

Lastly with her lowered I removed the useless running boards and plan on using them as ground effects siding and adding a lowered air dam up front.

View attachment 429995

Lastly the Explorer head light are a lot better that a Crown Vics, but they still lack reach so I will add these flame thrower road lights behind the grill to really reach out and see miles ahead and NOT be over running my head lights at 85MPH.

View attachment 429994

That is all I can think of changing.


Rich View attachment 429993

Ooc what rear axle you got in thing! JC!

 

[racprops]

Ooc what rear axle you got in thing! JC!

Stock 3.73 Limited slip.

Rich

 

[Bazz270]

OK So does the following happen??

Dash light(s) brink or Check engine light lights up??

To return to 4WD control do you have to stop, turn off engine, flip switch to enable 4WD and the restart engine and then engage 4WD high or low??

OR best of all worlds, you can be driving along and just flip the switch and then select any 4WD?? (Of course in my cast disengage OD.)

Rich

No idea about gen3

In my gen4 ,the auto,high and low buttons could be used only with the BWM switch ON.

With the switch OFF ,only RWD works,no any check light (or other warning) turned on.

You can switch the modes anytime.no need to stop the car.

 

[Flashflood]

If you have the awd transfer case basically disable it and 6r80 swap it.. I'm sorry I sound like a broken record but way more reliable plus won't f up your internals meaning no driveshaft shorting all that if you have the money to deal with double overdrives go with the cheaper route or regear your rear axles to make your rpms lower.

 

[racprops]

"No idea about gen3
In my gen4 ,the auto,high and low buttons could be used only with the BWM switch ON.
With the switch OFF ,only RWD works,no any check light (or other warning) turned on.
You can switch the modes anytime.no need to stop the car."


I would think is a 4th Gen behaves so then a 3rd gen should also do so.

Thanks.

Rich

 

[racprops]

If you have the awd transfer case basically disable it and 6r80 swap it.. I'm sorry I sound like a broken record but way more reliable plus won't f up your internals meaning no driveshaft shorting all that if you have the money to deal with double overdrives go with the cheaper route or regear your rear axles to make your rpms lower.

Flashflood, I answered you in a deep answer: I cleared it up a little:

Gear Ratios

5R55S 6R80
1st 3.22 1st 4.17
2nd 2.29 2nd 2.34
3rd 1,55 3rd 1.52
4th 1.00 4th 1.14
5th 0.71 5th .87
6th 0.47 6th .69
Double overdrive

The 6R80’s 6th gear is at is ONLY .02% lower than the 0.71 of the 5R55s, not the .47% I will get with a second over drive.

Road testing:

Lowest test I read was 49MPH by GPS and got 29MPG at 1480 RPMs.

And highest test was 59MPH and read 26MPG at 1800RPMS.

So in Double overdrive it can be running 1480RPMs at 70MPH!! Which might be 29MPG.

And at 1800RPMs be doing 85MPH which might be 26MPG!!

SO IF the SUV can get the same MPG at the Same RPMs then at the higher speed in double overdrive that will mean at 70MPH it will be doing 29MPG and at 85MPH getting 26MPG.

I might have a SUV that can get 29MPG at 70MPH highway.

Rich

 

[Flashflood]

Flashflood, I answered you in a deep answer: I cleared it up a little:

Gear Ratios

5R55S 6R80
1st 3.22 1st 4.17
2nd 2.29 2nd 2.34
3rd 1,55 3rd 1.52
4th 1.00 4th 1.14
5th 0.71 5th .87
6th 0.47 6th .69
Double overdrive

The 6R80’s 6th gear is at is ONLY .02% lower than the 0.71 of the 5R55s, not the .47% I will get with a second over drive.

Road testing:

Lowest test I read was 49MPH by GPS and got 29MPG at 1480 RPMs.

And highest test was 59MPH and read 26MPG at 1800RPMS.

So in Double overdrive it can be running 1480RPMs at 70MPH!! Which might be 29MPG.

And at 1800RPMs be doing 85MPH which might be 26MPG!!

SO IF the SUV can get the same MPG at the Same RPMs then at the higher speed in double overdrive that will mean at 70MPH it will be doing 29MPG and at 85MPH getting 26MPG.

I might have a SUV that can get 29MPG at 70MPH highway.

Rich

I'm sorry I see your point but the reliability still has me bothered okay I get it you have the ancient overdrive already I get that. But how long is it going to last. Plus if you really need to be making 25mpg why do you have a v8. I'm sorry but my the v6 that I have makes 25 going about 82 easy. With not stock tires. I understand where your going at but I think there some things you need to address first before doing this that's why I said gear ratio. not trying to be a jerk just saying my mind.

 

[J_C]

Lowest test I read was 49MPH by GPS and got 29MPG at 1480 RPMs.

So in Double overdrive it can be running 1480RPMs at 70MPH!! Which might be 29MPG.

And at 1800RPMs be doing 85MPH which might be 26MPG!!

SO IF the SUV can get the same MPG at the Same RPMs then at the higher speed in double overdrive that will mean at 70MPH it will be doing 29MPG and at 85MPH getting 26MPG.

I might have a SUV that can get 29MPG at 70MPH highway.

Rich

I doubt you will achieve this, because you are not driving in a vacuum. Air dams or not, the air resistance at 70MPH is far higher than at 49MPH, and more so, faster than that.

 

[Mbrooks420]

I doubt you will achieve this, because you are not driving in a vacuum. Air dams or not, the air resistance at 70MPH is far higher than at 49MPH, and more so, faster than that.

I agree. That and the added rotational mass, and drag, will be parasitic. I think your numbers are too linear.

 

[racprops]

OK I am aware of all of that.

First check this out:

This what I get looking up said van:

This is a bigger heavier taller box that my little Explorer.

And I have other personal reports of the small diesel version of these vans also getting 29/30MPG at 68/70MPH. Of interest is 70MPH as a number reported they had to be doing 68+ MPH to even get them into 8th gear

So as far as the old myth that these big boxes cannot get good MPG as they ARE big boxes is busted.

As for the adder weight, and the added rotational mass, yes when taking off there is the extra mass to spin up, but once at speed as per Newton's laws once spun up it will tend to stay spun up.

"Ancient overdrive already I get that. But how long is it going to last."

I as a teenager hot rodder of 16 I drove a 56 Studebaker in 1965 to 1970 and could not bust one. These are still holding up and still working in thousands of ancient cars.

"Plus if you really need to be making 25mpg why do you have a v8. I'm sorry but my the v6 that I have makes 25 going about 82 easy."

I wanted the 4.6 because of its rep for LONG life, these engines within a Cop cars are reported to go 100/150K in service, then sold to taxi companies they then get 100/150K in more service. The V6 on the other hand does not have this rep it has a timing chain on the back of the engine that is reported to fail anywhere from 100K to 200K. and the engine has to removed from the truck to replace it.

I was not willing to invest my time in a engine with one foot in the grave.

Also I had a 02 4.0 V6, and it did NOT get that much better MPG at highway speeds, running stock tires. It got asEPA has reported: about 2 MPG more.

My V8 has a greater take off and more power, which if I do the "Ancient overdrive" as to pull a SUV at highway speeds at 1500 RPMs it will need more torque to do that with out lugging.

Plus around town in street driving I have all that performance if I want it.

The 4.6 is much easier to service as well.

Lastly "With not stock tires." I would ask and point out if you as you say With not stock tires, running say bigger tires then you have changed your rear end ration and thrown off your speedo and odometer: note I pointed out I was using GPS to check my speed, so I KNOW I was doing a true 49MPH which my speedo was also reporting, so I was doing accurate speed and miles driven so the scan gauge was reporting real MPG.

Rich

 

[Flashflood]

I get what you're saying do what you do man. Yes I use gps to calculate my speed. I get it the 4.6 is extremely more reliable.(the transmission no just cause of those stupid coil packs) we've just had bad luck with 4.6 nothing against them. I have stock axles under my explorer. I have 31 10.50 15 on mine. But hey I understand where your going at didn't mean to sound like a jerk out of curiosity how many miles on her.

 

[94Eddie]

I doubt you will achieve this, because you are not driving in a vacuum. Air dams or not, the air resistance at 70MPH is far higher than at 49MPH, and more so, faster than that.

I too think the one thing that is being ignored here is air resistance at various speeds. Air resistance increases as a cube of velocity. It is far from being a linear increase. Engine load also needs to be considered. One can have the engine running at a low rpm but if the engine load is high at this rpm then mpg will plummet. The inherent lack of aerodynamic efficiency and weigh of the Explorer body, or any body, can't be overcome with gearing. It is low engine load (i.e. high manifold vacuum) that creates fuel efficiency and not engine rpm. This is why mpg skyrockets coasting down a hill and drops like a rock going up a hill. With the gearing ratios being proposed, engine load will go off the charts when any rolling resistance it met like going uphill, headwinds, increased speed etc.

Automakers spend an insane amount of time tweaking vehicles for maximum mpg. They hardly leave anything on the table for improvements that wouldn't involve severe compromise regarding driveability, safety, function etc. Also, the engine programming is set by the stock parameters of seeing certain RPMs at certain speeds. I was messing with the ECM programming on my 2007 Mustang and forgot to set the gearing to a 4.10 axle ratio instead of stock. It messed with the performance to the point it was nearly undriveable. It had severe issues accelerating, running under a load etc. Setting the axle ratio to the right setting cleared everything up and it ran great. What is being done here is basically the same as changing the rear end gearing and doing this will likely require a reprogramming of the ECM for the engine to run properly.

 

[racprops]

I get what you're saying do what you do man. Yes I use gps to calculate my speed. I get it the 4.6 is extremely more reliable.(the transmission no just cause of those stupid coil packs) we've just had bad luck with 4.6 nothing against them. I have stock axles under my explorer. I have 31 10.50 15 on mine. But hey I understand where your going at didn't mean to sound like a jerk out of curiosity how many miles on her.

I do not take your question as coming from a jerk...its cool.

Question make me recheck my ideas.

I have long felt that because we drive large trucks, vans and SUVs they have put a fix in. That because of the common idea that we chose a high profile truck we cannot expect good MPGs and under that cover they make SURE they will not.

My 93 Chevy van seemed to get 14MPG at any speed. Like the fix was in.

And in inspite of their reps, so far have not gotten great mileage out of a number of cars with reps of long life. Funny but the avg. age of all of my cars, vans and SUVs has been 130K. My vans all have need engines, avg. live of each van was 10 years in my hands but they were well used when I got them, so a 74, 78, 89, and a 93. Then a 85 626, a 91 Toyota, engine and a transmission failure. Last was a 2000 Mercury Grand Marques which I did a bunch of MPG testing and then hot rodded and broke its engine at 135K. But I was feeling it really had more miles on it..too many hints of it being a higher mileage car.

On the other hand I have gone though a number of cars that I ended up selling as I moved on. Like a 79 Camaro, which did not break but was sold...there was a 79, 84, 97 Cadillac's, and a bunch of Chevy, Ford etc. more that I drove and resold. All in all engine and transmission failures are fairly rare for me. Only few have had them.

So far the highest miles on their clocks are my 2 03s, a Crown Vic Ex cop car P71 with 186K on it and this Explorer with 203K. Both engines are great running a powerful. A joy to drive.

The 02 Explorer with its 4.0 5 speed was OK...nothing to write home about. It seemed to need a fair amount of repairs, but it did seduce me away from my latest love the 03 Vic. Loved the 5 speed, loved the parking, once I replaced the tires loved the handling, almost as good as the Vic. My wife love shopping and loading and unloading the belt high real cargo area. And loved being high enough to run with all the other SUVs,and pickup trucks. Hated the projected future engine and transmission projected soon to fail. Could not trust it for any out of town trips.

I was very close to swapping in a 4.6 with a Vic 4 speed...but unlike older cars and Vans these newer engine and transmissions are a LOT harder to swap.

SO I bought the V8 Explorer cheap with noisy timing chains. I was suppressed to discover the rack was leaking.

The transmission was performing great but after month it too got noisy with a going bad torque convertor.

Once out to replace the convertor, they started on a soft parts rebuild with the understanding that IF the transmission had already been rebuilt the cost would be small. I hoped that as the truck had over 200K it was unlikely for that to be the original untouched transmission by their reps.

Plus the cats had been replaced and the cross over pipe was in two parts suggesting the transmission had been removed once.

Alas it was an untouched original transmission with 203K on it and from the wear in fact not long to live. So it ended up getting a full rebuild.

The only fly in the ointment has been the pesky coil pack. And that is repairable, I just need to get a PCM from a Explorer with a vin number that shows it was built after September 03 and then we can put in the newer coil pack and I am set for life.

So all in all a fantastic small SUV, I get such a thrill when ever I drive it, it is so responsive and fast.

So the only other fly in the ointment is the MPG, 17/19 Highway is not good, 25/30 would be great, I really think the second overdrive will work.

Luckily I can do it for around $500.00, so it is not like dropping $3/4K on it only to not have it work.

Rich

 

[Mbrooks420]

I think that v8 is going to struggle to pull the higher gearing. Plus, the wind is going to hurt you much more than -1mpg.

 

[94Eddie]

OK I am aware of all of that.

First check this out:

This is a bigger heavier taller box that my little Explorer.

And I have other personal reports of the small diesel version of these vans also getting 29/30MPG at 68/70MPH. Of interest is 70MPH as a number reported they had to be doing 68+ MPH to even get them into 8th gear

So as far as the old myth that these big boxes cannot get good MPG as they ARE big boxes is busted.

As for the adder weight, and the added rotational mass, yes when taking off there is the extra mass to spin up, but once at speed as per Newton's laws once spun up it will tend to stay spun up.

"Ancient overdrive already I get that. But how long is it going to last."

I as a teenager hot rodder of 16 I drove a 56 Studebaker in 1965 to 1970 and could not bust one. These are still holding up and still working in thousands of ancient cars.

"Plus if you really need to be making 25mpg why do you have a v8. I'm sorry but my the v6 that I have makes 25 going about 82 easy."

I wanted the 4.6 because of its rep for LONG life, these engines within a Cop cars are reported to go 100/150K in service, then sold to taxi companies they then get 100/150K in more service. The V6 on the other hand does not have this rep it has a timing chain on the back of the engine that is reported to fail anywhere from 100K to 200K. and the engine has to removed from the truck to replace it.

I was not willing to invest my time in a engine with one foot in the grave.

Also I had a 02 4.0 V6, and it did NOT get that much better MPG at highway speeds, running stock tires. It got asEPA has reported: about 2 MPG more.

My V8 has a greater take off and more power, which if I do the "Ancient overdrive" as to pull a SUV at highway speeds at 1500 RPMs it will need more torque to do that with out lugging.

Plus around town in street driving I have all that performance if I want it.

The 4.6 is much easier to service as well.

Lastly "With not stock tires." I would ask and point out if you as you say With not stock tires, running say bigger tires then you have changed your rear end ration and thrown off your speedo and odometer: note I pointed out I was using GPS to check my speed, so I KNOW I was doing a true 49MPH which my speedo was also reporting, so I was doing accurate speed and miles driven so the scan gauge was reporting real MPG.

Rich

What you are overlooking is the engine and transmission tech in this van is light years ahead of a 2003 Explorer. It has direct injection, much higher compression, eight speed transmission, far more sophisticated engine/transmission programming etc. IMO, you are way over simplifying lowering just engine RPM's effect on mpg. If it was this simple then we would have had 2003 Explorers getting 30 mpg in 2003. I am not telling you what to do but there is a very good chance you will not see near the results you are expecting. If you are good with this then forge ahead. It will be interesting to see the results.

 

[Mbrooks420]

T

What you are overlooking is the engine and transmission tech in this van is light years ahead of a 2003 Explorer. It has direct injection, much higher compression, eight speed transmission, far more sophisticated engine/transmission programming etc. IMO, you are way over simplifying lowering just engine RPM's effect on mpg. If it was this simple then we would have had 2003 Explorers getting 30 mpg in 2003. I am not telling you what to do but there is a very good chance you will not see near the results you are expecting. If you are good with this the forge ahead.

Those vans are also probably a lot more aerodynamic than you think. The roof is flat with nothing to buffet air, and the rest of the van is fairly rounded.

If the solution to great MPG was simply raising the gearing they’d all just have super tall gears. This overdrive will accomplish nothing that couldn’t be done inside a transmission, and will include more parasitic losses than a transmission would.

There is no free lunch.

 

[racprops]

Hello, 94Eddie,

I have looked into all of this, I am a long term member of Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - Ecomodder.com Fuel Economy Forum, where they go to the exsteams in getting MPG.

Areo in fact has a much smaller effect that most believe.

I too think the one thing that is being ignored here is air resistance at various speeds. Air resistance increases as a cube of velocity.

Engine load also needs to be considered. One can have the engine running at a low rpm but if the engine load is high at this rpm then mpg will plummet.

Yes a normal Chevy 350 with it torque peek a 2800/3000RPMs will indeed lug at under 2K. That is one reason I moved up to the 4.6. In my 2000 Mercury Grand marques, I was able to get 27/30MPG at 1700RPMs at 65MPH all the time. The 4.6 makes good power at 1500RPMs.

The inherent lack of aerodynamic efficiency and weigh of the Explorer body, or any body, can't be overcome with gearing. It is low engine load (i.e. high manifold vacuum) that creates fuel efficiency and not engine rpm.

Every hear of pumping losses?? High vacuum in fact caused more drag within the engine, which is one of the things that helps diesels get better MPG, no vacuum...

This is why mpg skyrockets coasting down a hill and drops like a rock going up a hill. With the gearing ratios being proposed, engine load will go off the charts when any rolling resistance it met like going uphill, headwinds etc.

Granted but so will any and all cars, vans, trucks and SUVs. I know these MPGs will only happen on lever no wind highways.

Automakers spend an insane amount of time tweaking vehicles for maximum mpg. They hardly leave anything on the table for improvements that wouldn't involve severe compromise regarding driveability, safety, function etc. Also, the engine programming is set by the stock parameters of seeing certain RPMs at certain speeds. I was messing with the ECM programming on my 2007 Mustang and forgot to set the gearing to a 4.10 axle ratio instead of stock. It messed with the performance to the point it was nearly undriveable. It had severe issues accelerating, running under a load etc. Setting the axle ratio to the right setting cleared everything up and it ran great. What is being done here is basically the same as changing the rear end gearing and doing this will likely require a reprogramming of the ECM for the engine to run properly.

Yes all very true, BUT I am not changing the rear end ratio, I am adding a 6th gear. I have never had any thing have any problem running in any gear, from 1st to 5th, and can drive around all day in second, or third etc. No problem what so ever.

So areo is a minor problem, gearing a minor problem, (low cost to try) an engine that is happy at 1500RPMs no problem, FYI an engine that can do 6/7 Grand will not be happy even at 2500RPMs...

There are a number of books and articles on how to get great MPG in Motor homes and pickup truck towing trailers, the trick is to gear for the engines torque peek and your chosen cruising speed for the best power and MPG. These speeds are to be around the highway speed limits.

These articles warn against nearly every hot rodding trick like RV cams etc. All power tricks more the RPM range Upward which will have less power at lower RPMs and suck more fuel.

I really believe I have considered every part of all of this and will of course report back what happens.

Rich

 

[racprops]

What you are overlooking is the engine and transmission tech in this van is light years ahead of a 2003 Explorer. It has direct injection, much higher compression, eight speed transmission, far more sophisticated engine/transmission programming etc. IMO, you are way over simplifying lowering just engine RPM's effect on mpg. If it was this simple then we would have had 2003 Explorers getting 30 mpg in 2003. I am not telling you what to do but there is a very good chance you will not see near the results you are expecting. If you are good with this then forge ahead. It will be interesting to see the results.

I don't completely agree, they are getting more HP and Torque out of smaller and smaller engines. DOD failed, and damaged a lot or engines...direct injection engines now need their intake vales cleaned way too often, Non direct injected cars never need that... and use high fuel pressure so ANY leak and boom fire bomb.

Turbos are great for power but wear out these baby engines fast and they too have short lives and are all VERY costly to repair or replace.

The reasons for the 6,8,and 10 speed transmissions is the help keep the baby engines in their tiny lower ranges

Newer cars have up to 50 to 100 Computers in them now, even your power windows are controlled by them which can cause power windows opening and closing all by themselves and there are millions or other problems with our currently WAY over complex cars.

And they are working on mulitplexing the wiring so they need less wires, and these system are already causing increatable nightmares for auto repair techs.

NOW you best figure on buying a new car every 5 years for the rest of you life as getting them repaired will break the bank. Wow just like the 50s and 60s, car makes got their wishes.

Yes the factories are doing a great job of smoke and mirrors, it LOOKS like they are doing all they can on MPG etc. BUT all I can see is more costly cars with MUCH more costly repairs and MUCH more breakdowns.

Personally I feel we are being scammed.

The good cars of the early 2000s to to 2010 seem to be the best long living easy and cheap to repair...

Those vans are also probably a lot more aerodynamic than you think. The roof is flat with nothing to buffet air, and the rest of the van is fairly rounded.

Funny as that is one of my points.

If the solution to great MPG was simply raising the gearing they’d all just have super tall gears.

It is a fact that decades ago you COULD buy a GM car with super highway gears, like 2.24s and 2.40s but not now. I consider the newer 6 and 8 speed transmission with such gearing but cannot find them but in 40 year old worn out cars. Such would work great, but the lowest gears I can get for a Ford or GM is 2.73.


" Mbrooks420: Said 'This overdrive will accomplish nothing that couldn’t be done inside a transmission, and will include more parasitic losses than a transmission would."

Agreed IF someone would make a transmission with a .45 final gear. SO far they have only dropped from a .72 to a .65 and that is in a very costly 10 speed.

I will end up with a $4000.00 great SUV, one that I can fix and maintain, not a $40,000.00 PLUS SUV that needs thousands of dollars in repairs every-time something breaks.

I cannot afford the 40K. I can do the $4k AND I am NOT paying interest of that 4k either. (Do the math on a loan for a 40k + car or van...) Mine is all bought and paid for.

Of course all of this is not for everyone.

But I have been fixing and fixing up my cars sense 1965.

Rich

 

[Mbrooks420]

They don’t have the gearing because the motors can’t pull them. You’re foolish if you don’t thing at least one auto maker would do this, if for nothing else to skew their fleet mileage. They are building smaller and smaller engines to do this at the cost of lifespan and warranty claims.

They would surely drag out an old, outdated, past it’s prime motor and couple it to a super tall geared car IF it would work. It’d save them hundreds of millions of dollars over engineering 1/10s of a mpg with each additional tech added. They care about the profit. There’s no conspiracy theory about the automakers keeping your mileage down. Otherwise they’d do it with lower tech, and save themselves a ton in engineering labor, tooling cost, patents, R&D. If this was a viable solution, it’d already be done. There’s a reason these overdrive units died in the 50s. They were no longer viable.

Between 85 and 90 my RPMS barely change. My running MPGs surely plummet.

 

[racprops]

They don’t have the gearing because the motors can’t pull them. You’re foolish if you don’t thing at least one auto maker would do this, if for nothing else to skew their fleet mileage. They are building smaller and smaller engines to do this at the cost of lifespan and warranty claims.

YES especially the newer baby engines that use RPMS to make their HP and Torque. And have you not heard that GM is NOT repairing their 8 speed transmissions because (They claim) they did not make them wrong, but the failures are caused by a DESIGN FLAW and NOT their problem....

I am picking and building engines that CAN handle 1500 RPMs as a cruse, I proven that with a 2000 Mercury that got 30MPG and 1700RPMs at 65MPH. IF I had dropped in a second over drive it could have been doing 1500RPMs and 85MPH..and perhaps made 25/30MPG.

They are balancing making a car that can make 100K, and even if they do all the repairs have you not heard of cars that have spent 50% of their lifes in the shop??

If you can't drive it it is no good.

They would surely drag out an old, outdated, past it’s prime motor and couple it to a super tall geared car IF it would work. It’d save them hundreds of millions of dollars over engineering 1/10s of a mpg with each additional tech added. They care about the profit. There’s no conspiracy theory about the automakers keeping your mileage down. Otherwise they’d do it with lower tech, and save themselves a ton in engineering labor, tooling cost, patents, R&D. If this was a viable solution, it’d already be done. There’s a reason these overdrive units died in the 50s. They were no longer viable.

Between 85 and 90 my RPMS barely change. My running MPGs surely plummet.

And again I very well aware of all of that as well. And no they would NEVER take a step backwards. ALMOST all of the new tech is for POLLUTION control, not for MPG and to sell car it is still HP, I have a fast 240HP Crown Vic, it is totally fast enough for me. Yet a good friend has a 500HP Camaro..insane...others drive 700+HP cars, and have cars that can go 200MPH..where are you going to use all of that.

Tesla can go from 0 to 60 in less than 2 seconds, and win 99% of all 1/4 mile drags races....again silly use.

My wife has a 2000 Toyota with a 4 banger and it is fast enough, and can get 35+MPG at 65/70MPH. and does 25 city all the time. It is small and not all that nice on long trips. But gets great MPG and is all paid for. IF we really need to take a trip and cost was a factor we could take it, and I can fairly trust it to get there and back.

"There’s a reason these overdrive units died in the 50s. They were no longer viable." Yet they were made in the millions from around 1932 to 1967.

All that happened was they brought out autos WITH overdrives. (Took a couple of decades as no one cared about MPG during the 60s, and 70s,) I did start to care during the 80s on long road trips when money started to run out.

Most people wanted the autos...nowadays the joke is that a stick shift is an anti-theft device as 90% of car thefts cannot drive them.

It is a proven fact that a stick will give better MPG.

But I will no longer want to drive one.

And like the 6/8/10 gear autos all those extra gears are for MORE POWER. They keep your engine at its peek HP Better that lesser gears.

I don't need a any more that my stock 5 speed with a special highway 6th gear that gives me that high speed with low RPMS.

I will let you all know what happens.

Rich