MPG increase?

[MDmounty]

I'd like to squeeze more miles out of my mounty I'm getting about 15 mpg right now. I have a cone filter and a gibson super flow muffler on it now. Just wondering what could help me out with this cause it's my daily driver and I'm dropping at least 250 a month in the tank

 

[BRipp]

Don't use your air conditioner, don't hammer on it. I have the 5.0 and average 16.5. Tires are also at 35, just make sure yips can tale that pressure.

 

[masospaghetti]

The low hanging fruit is changing fluids to synthetics and a full tune up. The synthetics might give a couple percent at best but is still worth it. If the engine is in good shape and not burning oil, you could try a lighter weight oil like Mobil 0W-30.

Make sure you have good tire pressure. Never exceed the max pressure on the sidewall but I've run 35 psi for many years with good results. Some members run higher.

You can lower the front a bit by adjusting the torsion bars which should improve aero drag. Lowering the front will increase camber so don't do it excessively or you will wear out your tires. You can also install a air dam under the front bumper to improve aero. I used some common materials from Lowe's, that rubber baseboard meant for offices.

Replace your mechanical fan with an electric one. This can be fairly involved, I have not done it, but should help significantly on the highway and improve low speed a/c performance.

Only run the A/C when you need it. The A/C runs in any position except for dash vents only and floor only. Any other setting is driving the compressor.

Replace your taillights and parking lights with LEDs. Small reduction in electrical draw will improve economy. Bulb type 3157 for rear, 194 for front.

At the end of the day you have a large, heavy truck-based SUV with a pushrod V8. Driving like you have no brakes will probably make the biggest difference. It takes a lot of energy to get the vehicle rolling.

 

[Gilbert G. Jr.]

I consciously do a foot reset on the pedal. Once you are up to speed at the speed limit you can reset your foot with light pressure to maintain speed. Of course there is many variables to make this work but as long as its always in practice I always squeeze the most out of my tank.

 

[J_C]

Assuming it's running good there's nothing you can do that's going to be cost effective to lower MPG much except keeping tires aired up, using hypermiler driving techniques which gets annoying, or making a smaller car your daily driver.

On the plus side that also makes the Explorer age better and if it cut your gas bill in half that's $1500/yr + reduced Explorer upkeep expenses to put towards the car TCO.

 

[ThreeJs]

Won't a cone filter and high flow exhaust theoretically increase air flow into the engine, resulting in more fuel as the MAF compensates, resulting in lower MPG?
I have a all stock 96 EB 4x4, 4,0 OHV and I'm averaging around 16.5ish w/A/C on max.

 

[1998Exp]

Don't think so: the engine will only breathe as much air as needed to sustain your load/speed/incline/wind resistance, etc., etc.
In fact, these mods may result in a tiny MPG improvement because of less power wasted on moving air through the engine.

Won't a cone filter and high flow exhaust theoretically increase air flow into the engine, resulting in more fuel as the MAF compensates, resulting in lower MPG?
I have a all stock 96 EB 4x4, 4,0 OHV and I'm averaging around 16.5ish w/A/C on max.

 

[J_C]

Won't a cone filter and high flow exhaust theoretically increase air flow into the engine, resulting in more fuel as the MAF compensates, resulting in lower MPG?
I have a all stock 96 EB 4x4, 4,0 OHV and I'm averaging around 16.5ish w/A/C on max.

A wise man once said you can't turn a brick into a feather.

I'd like to entertain your ideas, but they aren't going to be fruitful. If these could be cost effectively made more efficient then they would have came from the factory that way. Using updated tech that would be possible but to retrofit is a niche market which raises the cost so much that... no. You can increase HP if you're a lead foot but that will negate any significant MPG gains.

 

[SoNic67]

Won't a cone filter and high flow exhaust theoretically increase air flow into the engine, resulting in more fuel as the MAF compensates, resulting in lower MPG?
I have a all stock 96 EB 4x4, 4,0 OHV and I'm averaging around 16.5ish w/A/C on max.

The biggest loss on that front is the throttle plate. Lowering the losses in the filter will lead to driving with the plate closed slightly more, to add back the same loss. That's how a gasoline engine is regulating the air flow in cylinders - adding pressure loss on the intake.
That's why creates vacuum, that can be used as a source of extra power throughout the engine, including power brakes.
The only time where you could 'feel' the benefit from a lower loss air filter is when you drive with Wide Open Throttle. I never do that.

 

[MDmounty]

Thanks everyone looks like I have a couple of things to work on in the future

 

[1997XLTRollover]

I agree with the above, the cost of anything that will increase mileage really isn't worth it. The only thing maybe is the electric fan conversion done on the cheap. Junkyard fan setup, and a radiator temp sensor. But even that may hardly be worth the trouble.

I'm going to pull my fan off my engine, go for a long highway trip and see how much it helps MPG. If it helps enough I'll do the conversion, if not the stock fan stays on.

 

[J_C]

^ Not sure that a long highway trip is a good way to test fan (in)efficiency because operating at a nearly continuous and moderately low engine RPM, in high gear (=speed) like you would on a highway means a higher grill intake airflow per engine heat generation.

In other words a temp controlled fan would likely run the least in that situation. Then again if that's where most of a tank of gas is spent then it's as valid a test as any.

 

[masospaghetti]

No, that's actually the perfect test for mileage gains. On the highway the electric fan wouldn't be running anyway but the mechanical fan is running no matter what. It's an easy way to see what the maximum gains would be from the electric fan without actually doing the conversion.

 

[J_C]

^ I thought there was a clutch on it so it's not always running, no?

 

[AP9]

Do you have your roof rack cross-bars still on? Removing those would help aerodynamics a bit.

 

[J_C]

Do you have your roof rack cross-bars still on? Removing those would help aerodynamics a bit.

If I were to guess a percentage, it'd be a fraction of 1.

 

[SoNic67]

Do you have your roof rack cross-bars still on? Removing those would help aerodynamics a bit.

I have those on and I thought about that. But looking at the squarish brick-like general shape of the Explorer, I doubt that the rack will have any significant influence.
As I said before, air drag, being proportional with speed squared, starts to be important factor at over 60-65 mph (my estimate, based on OBDII readings). That's the speed that has my maximum MPG. Hard to exactly tell, road is not always flat and that influences a lot.
Even when the road is sloped to side, to drain the water, keeping the wheels slightly rotated to compensate for that slope (and drive straight) will deduct from MPG.

 

[4rd Xplora]

I have those on and I thought about that. But looking at the squarish brick-like general shape of the Explorer, I doubt that the rack will have any significant influence.
As I said before, air drag, being proportional with speed squared, starts to be important factor at over 60-65 mph (my estimate, based on OBDII readings). That's the speed that has my maximum MPG.

Have to agree with that statement. I noticed at 65 and below, mileage increased at least 3-4/10th of a mile better, or 17.8 mpg roughly. Over that, around 17.3 average. Since the Ex has long been paid for, I can live with that. BTW, I removed the roof rack