So I finally received my 2014 E150 4.6 van a few months ago. I just turned 10k miles and it seems that the mileage keeps dropping. This is my 3rd van starting with a 97 ,06 and now a 14. All 3 were ordered exactly the same drive train and engine. Each one has dropped in gas mileage. The 97 got about 18-19 mpg. The 06 got about 16-18 mpg. And now this 14 is about 14-15 mpg. I am disappointed because the dealer wanted to put me in a new style with the ecoboost and I passed. Dropping off in gas mileage is bad enough but it also seems that each one has less and less horse power. All my tools and equipment were moved from truck to truck so weight has been the same. Any ideas?
Also as I get older I do find myself driving slower.

 

The 97 and 06 were "real" E150 vans with 5 lug wheels and GVW of 7200 lbs max. Your new 2014 is built like an E250 and weighs probably 500 lbs more, sits higher, probably has stiffer gearing, uses truck tires, etc. and has a GVW of over 8500 lbs. In 2007 they eliminated the car-tired E150 and put the name on a 250 "lite".

The 2-valve 4.6 is not much engine for an 8-lug van; it is OK in my '02 E150 when the van is lightly loaded but disappointing with a load. It probably has the same power as your 06 van, but is burdened by the 500 lbs of extra vehicle weight. Every other Ford vehicle has a more modern (and more powerful) engine lineup; they stopped using the 2 valve 4.6 in everything else in 2008 or so but it soldiered on in the vans.

Your van does not have to list mileage because the GVW is over 8500 lbs.

Depending on where you live, the added ethanol to gasoline could also be a big part of your gas mileage decreases. I lose maybe 2 mpg during the winter and have been seeing my mileage decrease as weather gets colder and gas gets worse. It will probably increase next spring.

Good luck; you have a very strong truck, and I predict that resale value on E vans will remain fairly high because people trust them and they have a familiarity factor.

George

 

A few questions and/or comments scream out at me about this........

-The 4.6 NA motor just isn't enough to lug whatever weight you're pulling around, at least IMHO--and I don't even (yet) know what your daily driver loaded GVW is. My 2003 E250 EB with 5.4 @ 190K miles weighs in at 7,600 gets about 13 MPG. As a work truck that heavily loaded that's not bad---I have to get to my jobs so it is what it is.

-Curb weight of the various years has to be a factor in the idea mileage is dropping. As YoGeorge touches upon re: E150's I thought that designation had been retired when the "real" E150's were retired?

-There does seem to be a sweet spot for MPG's in the E250's which for me is 65 MPH--currently I'm getting just at 13 MPG. Its claimed even better MPG's are achieved @ 55 MPH but that's simply impractical for most of the freeway driving I do. Pushing it to 70 even with cruise control the MPG's do drop although not too drastically.

The Transit vans are an unknown item at this time regardless how well the EccoBoost motor does in the F-Series. Ford vans have less general mass customer interest along with being thought of mostly as cargo/work vehicles. Despite the numerous factory configurations with people moving in mind they'll almost never be the higly efficient fuel misers F-Series can be.

Not sure what expectations were in mind but bigger vehicles use more gas, all things being equal anyway.

 

Thats confirmed at the pump, as opposed to just reading the number on the dash readout?

Probably the general trend is due to falling BTU's in gasoline over the years (due to ethanol blending) and of course, as winter sets in, fuel mileage drops too.

Then there is the trend for more emissions equipment in later vehicles to use more fuel, and your driving habits when the van is brand new may be a bit easier on the throttle.

Plus as was pointed out, the newer van is heavier than your previous vans.

Could just be a combination of all of the above.

 

My '03 E250 has the 4.2L V-6, and I get about 13 MPG around town. It does just fine in terms of acceleration, considering it, too, is typically loaded pretty well with tools. I'm sure the 4.10 rear helps, but I read that the engine is rated at 225ish HP, and by the seat of the pants, I believe it--it's every bit as driveable as my '93 F250 was with a 5.8L (210 HP) and a 4.10 rear (which only got about 10 MPG).

My friend had a '98 E150 with the 4.2L V-6, and that thing was a turd--I was leery of buying mine at first until I test drove it. It could have had a different rear end, and being older, may not have had as many ponies under the hood.

The bottom line is that it takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate a big old brick like the vans are and move them down the road, which translates to going through a certain amount of fuel, regardless of the size of the engine. Differences in efficiency tend to be relatively small, especially nowadays as all engines are getting tuned better for more efficiency (and more ponies as a result, too!).

Jason

 

Jason I agree completely with you here----the 4:10 rear gearing has to play a big part in your better performance especially as it relates to acceleration.

Most of us have the 3:73 and I can't help wondering how much better the E-Series would be if somewhere around a 4:00 could be had---a decent compromise maybe?

 

The 4.2 was rated at 191 hp in 2003 and the 4.6 PI (power improved) 2 valve engine has been steady at 225 hp for many years.

The V6 has always gotten lower gas mileage than the 4.6 based on EPA ratings and everything I have heard from owners in real life. If you overwork a smaller engine, it is often the case that a larger engine of similar design can give better MPG.

George

 

I think George hit it.
i started looking at it today and I never realized the 8 lug rims and for tires the pressure calls for 80 lbs. Thy GVW is over 8K.
So it seems it's not a 150 and has the running gear of a 250. So what would make it a real 250? If I new about the gvw and drive train, I would have ordered the 5.4 engine. At least then I would have allot more hp with the lower mpg. As far as the cluster gauge display, what a joke. It usually shows around 18-19 mpg. Must be new math.

 

Hey 97; tire pressures should be what is specified on the door jamb, not the max pressure on the tires, but yeah, you have a heavy duty van compared to your oldies for sure.

The old E250 used to come in at a GVW of barely more than the E150 but was targeted toward truck use more than car use.

I think what made Ford change over in 2007 is that they were bound to a GVW of 7200 lbs with the car tires and axles they were using, and when converters would make a fancy hi-top conversion, they would end up with a 5600-5800 lb vehicle with 7 seats in it. Doesn't take much of the old style math to figure out that the vans would often get overloaded, and I don't think Ford wanted the warranty claims from broken parts or the lawsuits from people who flipped the vans over. Brakes were always a weak point and if they started adding to brakes and suspension strength on the old 150, they would end up with even less payload. The frame rails on your van are also thicker and I believe taller than the old E150, so it's definitely Ford Tough.

Finally, if they kicked the GVW up over 8500 lbs, the vans were exempt from the EPA fuel economy requirements and the vans never helped their Corporate Avg Fuel Economy, so I think that was the final nail in the coffin of the old 5-lug E150. The conversion market is pretty well gone anyway, and that market did value the softer ride of P rated car tires...

I think they kept the 150 name so that fleets could still have a "loss leader" choice to make when ordering 10, 100, or 1000 vans.

As I said, you have a wonderfully sturdy van, and it'll last you a while. Remember that they used to put the 4.2 V6 into base E250's and that would have been really pathetic...

Wishing you many safe miles in your new van; your mileage will probably go up a bit when summer fuel comes back onto the market. But all gas is lousier than it used to be. I wish someone still sold ethanol-free gas and I hate the talk of putting 15% ethanol into our gas instead of the 10% max....

George

 

I don't mean to keep beating on a dead horse, but in the "Articles, Specifications" link at the top of the page on this forum, you can see the specs for different year vehicles. The 2003 E van specs are at 2003 Ford F150 Specifications - Ford Trucks and the base E250 had a GVW of 7200 lbs.

My first 2 vans were a '74 E200 flatnose Ford and an '86 GMC 2500 Vandura (both conversions) and despite those being "3/4 ton" vans with the 2xx numbers, they rode on car tires. Chevy/GMC went to separate body/frame with the '96 Savana/Express vans and their 2500 vans then went to truck tires because, like Fords, the separate body/frame vans were always heavier.

The old Dodge vans stayed with car tires on the 2xx series until they were eliminated in 2003 for the Sprinter.

George

 

I have always had good luck with Ford vans. I have put on more than 1 million miles on there vans. Reliability and resale. The last 2 that I personally owned and sold had over 220,000 miles each and were sold all original including battery and exhaust. No major problems, just tires every 100,000 miles. The only thing ever needed was trans flush to take care of a shutter. Thats why I did not want the new style.

 

I've only got 122k on my '02 E150 and it has been the best full sized van I've owned by far and I have had 5 over the years as personal/recreational vans so I'm with you.

I would be wary of being a first-year adopter of a new Transit as well.

Gas mileage is not the only factor involved in the true economy of a vehicle. It sounds like you know that also and I would have made the same choice you did in buying your van.

Here's hoping you have many safe and reliable miles in your new van. Even though they're discontinued, I would have zero concerns about finding parts or service.

George

 

Hmm. Some interesting numbers there, but they are for the F-series, not the E-series. They could be the same, but who knows? What I really find odd is that the '03 4.2 (in the F150) was only rated at 191 HP, whereas it was over 200 HP in prior years. Manufacturers will often de-tune their engines in heavier-duty vehicles for longevity.

My '03 E250 has truck tires (LT245/75R16E), the higher GVW (8600), and the 4.2--it was previously a mobile service vehicle of some sort, like hydraulic or welding or some such (plenty of inventory labels stuck in various places inside). Like I said in a previous post, it's not going to win any races, but it's adequate for a work van--I don't feel that it's underpowered getting on the interstate when there's a short ramp. My friend has the '02 E250 and a 4.2, but he's got the smaller tires and lower GVW. No clue what he has for rear gearing.

Jason

 

Overwork? Going down the road at 65-70 with an average load should only take about 50 HP or so--peak HP is meaningless for the vast majority of driving (it does come into play towing a heavy load uphill, of course, but that's more about how fast it can get up the hill, not whether it can do it). It would take some pretty serious analysis to determine why a 4.6 V8 gets better mileage than a 4.2 V6--the V6 has fewer moving parts, and less total internal frictional area, which should mean better efficiency. Obviously, there could be other factors that tip the balance the other direction.

Jason

 

I accessed those specs off the main 2003 E series page and if you cursor down the specs, the body and chassis specs are all for the van, not the pickups...so I think FTE's heading for the page incorrectly has an F instead of an E.

Engines were typically rated a bit lower in the vans than in the pickups when they had the same engine types offered. (Maybe 10 hp less for the 2 valve V8's...possibly due to intake or exhaust differences.)

Good catch on the F150 heading, but I think it's FTE's error.... Here are the 2002 E van specs which are much the same as the 2003 specs. 2004 saw the elimination of the 4.2 altogether.

2002 Ford Econoline Specifications - Ford Trucks

Based on 2011 specs, it looks like the 4.6 came with 3.73 gears; I am guessing the OP should be able to tell his gearing either from his new vehicle price sticker or checking the axle code on the door sticker. 2011 lists the availability of 3.73, 4.10, and 4.56 axle ratios.

George