Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Explorer / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

99 Ford Explorer Gas mileage

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
jhonny - 18 Dec 2004 02:53 GMT
I own a 99 ford explorer V6. I want to know whats the average mileage I
should be expecting. Right now I am getting about 300-330 miles per
tank (21 gallons). So am I getting the average mileage or not??????
Mark Olson - 18 Dec 2004 03:05 GMT
> I own a 99 ford explorer V6. I want to know whats the average mileage I
> should be expecting. Right now I am getting about 300-330 miles per
> tank (21 gallons). So am I getting the average mileage or not??????

You didn't specify what conditions that you drive under.

All freeway, all city, a mixture of freeway and city driving, infrequent
short trips, mostly long trips, high speed, low speed, hot climate, cold
climate, a light foot on the accelerator, a stoplight dragster, or what?

It all makes a _lot_ of difference.

Oh, and do you use gasohol or straight gasoline?  That matters, too.
jhonny - 18 Dec 2004 03:13 GMT
Mostly my driving is a mixture of city and freeway, mostly long trips
and on the highway speed is usually 75 mph, I am in VA so the climate
is not that bad and I would say I am not too heavy on the accelerator.
I just use the regular gasoline (87).
Searcher - 18 Dec 2004 03:42 GMT
THats about right, What octane are you running? 87 then thats about what I
am getting with my 97. I can go 318 miles before my check gauge lights comes
on. If I drive out to the mountains (all highway) then I can get 350 per
tank. I have BF Goodrich AT KO's with auto AWD 4.0 V6.

Searcher1

>I own a 99 ford explorer V6. I want to know whats the average mileage I
> should be expecting. Right now I am getting about 300-330 miles per
> tank (21 gallons). So am I getting the average mileage or not??????
Doug S. - 19 Dec 2004 04:12 GMT
Let me get this math correct here first. 330 miles for 21 gallons of
gas is around 15 mpg. I get on the average of 20 mpg. I have a  1999
soc 6 banger, and burn 87 octane gas, and do mostly highway mixed with
a little city driving. I'm running 35psi for tire pressure. Maybe it's
my light foot on the gas that makes the difference.

>THats about right, What octane are you running? 87 then thats about what I
>am getting with my 97. I can go 318 miles before my check gauge lights comes
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> should be expecting. Right now I am getting about 300-330 miles per
>> tank (21 gallons). So am I getting the average mileage or not??????
Ben Kaufman - 19 Dec 2004 05:07 GMT
>Let me get this math correct here first. 330 miles for 21 gallons of
>gas is around 15 mpg. I get on the average of 20 mpg. I have a  1999
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>> should be expecting. Right now I am getting about 300-330 miles per
>>> tank (21 gallons). So am I getting the average mileage or not??????

That's what I used to get too. about 20 for highway driving with a sohc v6 and
4.10 diff.  For mixed driving (I have a light foot) I got around 17. I think
mileage has gone down since gasohol but it's tough to check it out since my
driving is mainly stop and go now.

Ben
Jim Warman - 19 Dec 2004 05:32 GMT
The worst way to try and guage gas mileage is miles/tank. The only sure way
is to compute miles travelled for gallons pumped...
http://www.dkcpa.com/calc/java_mpg.html looks pretty good though I haven't
used it. I can assure you that if fuel consumption were an issue, I would
NOT have a driveway full of 4X4s.

>I own a 99 ford explorer V6. I want to know whats the average mileage I
> should be expecting. Right now I am getting about 300-330 miles per
> tank (21 gallons). So am I getting the average mileage or not??????
Hemlock Soames - 19 Dec 2004 16:06 GMT
>The worst way to try and guage gas mileage is miles/tank. The only sure way
>is to compute miles travelled for gallons pumped...
>http://www.dkcpa.com/calc/java_mpg.html looks pretty good though I haven't
>used it. I can assure you that if fuel consumption were an issue, I would
>NOT have a driveway full of 4X4s.

 I have a 98 Sport with the 4 liter OHV V-6.  I drive 21 miles to
work each day and 90% of this is on an Interstate highway.  I average
19 miles per gallon, carefully measured.  Sometimes a tad more or
less, depending largely on how much driving around town I do on the
weekend - usually not much.

 I drive 60-65 on the Interstate to keep up with traffic.  Recently I
decided to drive for a week while taking pains to conserve fuel by
limiting acceleration and braking and keeping to a 55 mph limit.  I
was able to closely follow this regimen.

 I picked up about 1 mile per gallon.  One of these days I plan to
try the experiment again with a speed limit of 60 and see if that
improves matters.  As it stands it appears that the attempt to improve
mileage by varying the driving style produces only a minor
improvement.  Disappointing.

 Soames

"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"
Jim Warman - 19 Dec 2004 17:03 GMT
I think you may see larger gains in the 55 mph range as well as using your
gentle throttle technique. The Ex has the drag coefficient of a shapely
brick and the power required to move the wind out of the way increases
exponentially with speed.

Whenever we set out to check our fuel consumption, we are setting ourselves
up for a disappointment. The EPA rating on the showroom sticker has little
to do with what we will realize in real world driving - it is simply a
measure taken in closely controlled circumstances (dynamometer, air temp,
etc.) so that we can compare to other vehicles. Even though our gas prices
have been over 80 cents per litre (over $3 per US gallon), fuel consumption
is the very last thing on my mind when selecting a vehicle. This shows in my
preference for full sized, 4WD pick-ups.

Others will view gas mileage with varying degrees of importance, though I
admit to being amused by those suffering "pump island shock" after moving up
from an econo-box. If we have no identifiable running concerns - and - if
the CEL works but is not illuminated - and - if we have no external fuel
leaks - and - if the evaporative emissions system hasn't been breached, we
are very likely getting the best fuel mileage we can (dictated by our
driving style, of course).

Extended idling is one of the biggest fuel mileage killers..... stopping
down the block to talk to a neighbour..... sitting in a running car waiting
for our blushing brides to come out of the store with a quart of milk and a
six pack..... letting the defroster take care of that morning frost instead
of scraping..... I'm reminded of a cusomer from many years ago.... In the
dead of winter he was dis-satisfied with his gas mileage.... looking out the
window, his truck is running with the heater on full blast. I told him it
was "the weather". Come summer, he once again complained about his
mileage... looking out the window, I see his truck running with the AC on
full blast. Maintaining ones vehicle properly helps in the fuel mileage
wars, but nothing will make the same difference as losing old habits.

In the meantime, the manufacturers are busy trying to perfect both the
hybrid and the CVT transmission. Both are a unique driving experience but
neither is suitable for my lifestyle and/or demographics.

Bottom line..... if we drive the kind of vehicle we want/need to drive, we
shall have to pay the piper. If fuels costs have us tossing and turning at
night, we should use public transit. My best suggestion is to put down the
pad and pencil, turn off the calculator and simply enjoy driving our chosen
rides....

, visualize using your turn signal"
Hemlock Soames - 19 Dec 2004 22:51 GMT
>I think you may see larger gains in the 55 mph range as well as using your
>gentle throttle technique. The Ex has the drag coefficient of a shapely
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
>, visualize using your turn signal"

"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"
Hemlock Soames - 19 Dec 2004 23:02 GMT
(snip)

>In the meantime, the manufacturers are busy trying to perfect both the
>hybrid and the CVT transmission. Both are a unique driving experience but
>neither is suitable for my lifestyle and/or demographics.

 I don't expect dramatic improvements from the CVT but of course in
societal terms a 5% increase would be worthwhile.  I like the idea of
the hybrids very much but wonder about the cost factor.

>Bottom line..... if we drive the kind of vehicle we want/need to drive, we
>shall have to pay the piper. If fuels costs have us tossing and turning at
>night, we should use public transit. My best suggestion is to put down the
>pad and pencil, turn off the calculator and simply enjoy driving our chosen
>rides....

 Yes.  My relatively old Explorer continues to be a wonder to me.  I
keep vehicles for a long time, and my previous ride was a '84
Chevrolet S-10.  There was a quantum leap in automobile engineering
between '84 and '98.  My Explorer has 52,000 miles on it and still
runs as well as the day I bought it.  Well, except for the readout on
the #$%$# radio.

 My pet theory is that fuel pump shock relates solely to the size of
the gas tank and the bottom line cost of a fill-up.  Relatively few
people know how to calculate fuel mileage.  That is why fuel tanks are
sized as small as the manufacturer can get away with, at least IMHO.
I'd like a larger tank, but then I use a company gas card.........

 (BTW, I think I double posted an empty reply, the first time I've
done THAT, apologies)

 Soames

"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"
Jim Warman - 20 Dec 2004 02:21 GMT
You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16 US
gallons - so much for "small as possible" theory. The limitations on fuel
tanks are cheap to build and fit in the available space.... unless, of
course, you would have the manufacturer delete the back seat and install a
ruddy great metal or plastic box in it's place....

What is it with this They did "this" for nefarious purposes and they did
"that" with subterfuge in mind????? Why stop at a 4.0 litre motor??? Why
didn't they build it bigger? Why don't the back windows go all the way
down??? More subterfuge...????

Indeed, pump island shock will remain no matter what the fuel tank size. If
your 98 is a 4 door, the fuel tank holds 21 US gallons of fuel when filled
to the proper level (might hold 24 US gallons if you're goofy enough to
try) - small? I think NOT.

"
Mark Olson - 20 Dec 2004 14:06 GMT
> You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
> extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16 US
> gallons - so much for "small as possible" theory. The limitations on fuel

No Jim, *you* must be a young'un...

On the 1974-1976 Bel Air, Caprice, and Impala (except station wagons)
the tank was >26< US gallons.  My first car was a 1966 Bel Air, and
it had a 20 gallon tank.  20 gallon tanks were not at all uncommon on
normal sized cars.  A 'compact' might have a small tank, such as the 16
gallon tank on the Chevy II.
Jim Warman - 21 Dec 2004 06:11 GMT
I'll have to stand corrected.... all my early cars were intermediates and
compacts. My '60 Falcon featured a 10 Imperial gallon tank.... as did many
others I owned (smallish cars were my norm - I wasn't he kind of boy you
wanted your daughter riding with).

I would have been working on your BelAir when it was just off warranty.

>> You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
>> extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> normal sized cars.  A 'compact' might have a small tank, such as the 16
> gallon tank on the Chevy II.
Mark Olson - 21 Dec 2004 15:51 GMT
[top posting fixed]
>>> You must be a young'un..... way back when (before my pet dinosaur became
>>> extinct), a 12 US gallon tank was way BIG. Now, small fuel tanks are 16
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> normal sized cars.  A 'compact' might have a small tank, such as the 16
>> gallon tank on the Chevy II.

> I'll have to stand corrected.... all my early cars were intermediates and
> compacts. My '60 Falcon featured a 10 Imperial gallon tank.... as did many
> others I owned (smallish cars were my norm - I wasn't he kind of boy you
> wanted your daughter riding with).

I also owned two MGBs, a VW beetle, a Plymouth Champ, a Plymouth (yes I
know) Colt, a Pinto (my worst car ever, absolutely no question) etc. so
I've had my share of little cars too.

> I would have been working on your BelAir when it was just off warranty.

When I owned it the only one to ever touch it (for anything other than
tire changes, etc.) was me, which is true of almost every car I've owned
since then, with a few exceptions.
Big Bill - 20 Dec 2004 17:54 GMT
> My pet theory is that fuel pump shock relates solely to the size of
>the gas tank and the bottom line cost of a fill-up.  Relatively few
>people know how to calculate fuel mileage.  That is why fuel tanks are
>sized as small as the manufacturer can get away with, at least IMHO.
>I'd like a larger tank, but then I use a company gas card.........

Mty Expedition has a 30 gal (nominal) tank.
That's the *smallest* they could fit?
My 91 F-250 had two 30 gallon tanks. That was the *smallest* they
could fit?
These are stock setups.
I think your opinion doesn't fit the facts.

Signature

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Jim Warman - 23 Dec 2004 05:19 GMT
Before I finally traded off my 93 F150, our gas had breached 75 cents/litre.
Already used to spendy fill ups, I still wasn't ready for one gas bar
operator in Edmonton (who obviously didn't see many real size vehicles) who
looked at my $75CA fill tab and said..... "Wow.... I've never seen that
before..... you can have that cup of coffee for FREE!!!". whooppee..... did
I win a prize or what?

Now my SuperCrew has a tank about the same size as yours..... A SuperDuty
with single rears can have a tank up to almost 40 gallons - with dual rears,
you can get two tanks combined at near 60 gallons. I've work on the odd
Chevy pick-up with tanks that never seem to end.

To add to Bills statement... the size of the tank is limited only by the
space available to put it. There isn't one single manufacturer out there
that wouldn't love the bragging rights to "goes further between fill
ups...".

>> My pet theory is that fuel pump shock relates solely to the size of
>>the gas tank and the bottom line cost of a fill-up.  Relatively few
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> These are stock setups.
> I think your opinion doesn't fit the facts.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.