lancer
Member
- Joined
- June 20, 2009
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- City, State
- Brisbane, State of Queensland, Australia
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- 96 UN XLT Wagon
Since I bought my 1996 Explorer UN XLT 4lt SOHC, with 230,000kms on the clock, about a month or so ago, I have carried out a number of checks to ensure that it continues to run and perform to my satisfaction.
I had to replace the lower ball joints which after the mileage it has done were really badly worn, never been replaced was my guess and so bad the front tyres were showing signs of wear on the inside which I thought may have been toe out or other alignment problems.
But no, the new ball joints have made a big difference to the steering, making it more predictable and firm, suspension does not have a loose feel to it either. The alignment mechanic made little or no adjustments to bring it to compliance for good tracking.
On to my main topic.
Given the good condition of the vehicle; it had a new factory long motor fitted about 25,000kms ago, so I thought it wise to check out the filters. The fuel filter looks like it has not been changed since new. Oil obviously has, as the one on it now is not a Ford product.
On taking the air filter off to be cleaned, looks like the original also, I found it had a Vortex Generator installed. It looks very much like a Maxx.
I did notice, prior to these checks that when it was hot it was idling a tad fast at just on 1,000rpm. It is an auto, in gear and stationary, it is about 800RPM, is that the norm? Could the device have altered or restricted the air flow that much that the on board computer compensated?
I have read the comments from many Explorer owners on this Forum on their perceptions, experiences and critical advice about these types of alleged fuel saving devices.
So, as I was going on a 1,000km round trip I decided to test the thing out.
I left it out on the outbound trip of just on 500kms, with most of the trip run at about 100 -110KPH on the highway running mostly on cruise control. Only coming off when permitted speed limits dropped, like going past schools and through towns.
I estimate given the amount of fuel used after a fill on arrival at our destination, that the vehicle did about 24/25MPG.
I drove it around the outback Queensland town of Roma for a few days and reckon that it was doing about 16MPG town running. It is winter here in OZ with fine clear days and a temperature range in Roma of between 1-18centigrade each day. Around town it hardly warmed up given most were short local trips. Roma is a town of about 4,000 people so the area size can be judged by that number.
I reinstalled the device on the day of the return journey to my home in Brisbane, filled the Explorer up and off we went. I run it on 10% ethanol blend as well. You know, doing our small bit for the environment, and it is 6cents a litre cheaper too.
The return trip was over the same route with nothing out of the ordinary or different to my outbound journey.
On checking the consumption on our return, the vehicle had run at about 27/28MPG. An improvement of about 3MPG on the highway.
I filled it up at the same servo as soon as I hit our home suburb. I did so to get the volume used on the return and so I could do a local drive comparison with that at Roma.
After a week of around town running with the device still in, the Explorer logged the same as that at Roma, 16/18MPG.
I was pretty careful on judging the tank fills each time and the calculation.
As well, I am not a tear arse driver. I respect the vehicle I drive, especially on long highway trips to western Queensland where distances of over 200 kms between towns is not rare. There is not a servo or mechanic on every corner out there.
My resulting conclusion on this test, around town, no difference.
On the highway over a long trip using cruise control as much as possible, an improvement of about 3MPG.
Not for one moment am I endorsing the device, as those figures are as correct as I can get them, without using any formal metering devices.
I will be doing a similar trip close to Xmas, when our 3rd grandchild is born, so I will do the same exercise again to reinforce or disprove my intial findings.
Les Bryant
'lancer'
Brisbane, Australia
I had to replace the lower ball joints which after the mileage it has done were really badly worn, never been replaced was my guess and so bad the front tyres were showing signs of wear on the inside which I thought may have been toe out or other alignment problems.
But no, the new ball joints have made a big difference to the steering, making it more predictable and firm, suspension does not have a loose feel to it either. The alignment mechanic made little or no adjustments to bring it to compliance for good tracking.
On to my main topic.
Given the good condition of the vehicle; it had a new factory long motor fitted about 25,000kms ago, so I thought it wise to check out the filters. The fuel filter looks like it has not been changed since new. Oil obviously has, as the one on it now is not a Ford product.
On taking the air filter off to be cleaned, looks like the original also, I found it had a Vortex Generator installed. It looks very much like a Maxx.
I did notice, prior to these checks that when it was hot it was idling a tad fast at just on 1,000rpm. It is an auto, in gear and stationary, it is about 800RPM, is that the norm? Could the device have altered or restricted the air flow that much that the on board computer compensated?
I have read the comments from many Explorer owners on this Forum on their perceptions, experiences and critical advice about these types of alleged fuel saving devices.
So, as I was going on a 1,000km round trip I decided to test the thing out.
I left it out on the outbound trip of just on 500kms, with most of the trip run at about 100 -110KPH on the highway running mostly on cruise control. Only coming off when permitted speed limits dropped, like going past schools and through towns.
I estimate given the amount of fuel used after a fill on arrival at our destination, that the vehicle did about 24/25MPG.
I drove it around the outback Queensland town of Roma for a few days and reckon that it was doing about 16MPG town running. It is winter here in OZ with fine clear days and a temperature range in Roma of between 1-18centigrade each day. Around town it hardly warmed up given most were short local trips. Roma is a town of about 4,000 people so the area size can be judged by that number.
I reinstalled the device on the day of the return journey to my home in Brisbane, filled the Explorer up and off we went. I run it on 10% ethanol blend as well. You know, doing our small bit for the environment, and it is 6cents a litre cheaper too.
The return trip was over the same route with nothing out of the ordinary or different to my outbound journey.
On checking the consumption on our return, the vehicle had run at about 27/28MPG. An improvement of about 3MPG on the highway.
I filled it up at the same servo as soon as I hit our home suburb. I did so to get the volume used on the return and so I could do a local drive comparison with that at Roma.
After a week of around town running with the device still in, the Explorer logged the same as that at Roma, 16/18MPG.
I was pretty careful on judging the tank fills each time and the calculation.
As well, I am not a tear arse driver. I respect the vehicle I drive, especially on long highway trips to western Queensland where distances of over 200 kms between towns is not rare. There is not a servo or mechanic on every corner out there.
My resulting conclusion on this test, around town, no difference.
On the highway over a long trip using cruise control as much as possible, an improvement of about 3MPG.
Not for one moment am I endorsing the device, as those figures are as correct as I can get them, without using any formal metering devices.
I will be doing a similar trip close to Xmas, when our 3rd grandchild is born, so I will do the same exercise again to reinforce or disprove my intial findings.
Les Bryant
'lancer'
Brisbane, Australia