Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Ford Vans and other vehicles > 1968-2013 Full Size Vans
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1968-2013 Full Size Vans Econolines. E150, E250, E350, E450 and E550

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 02-24-2006, 08:06 PM
babbler babbler is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 58
babbler is starting off with a positive reputation.
95' E-150 5.8 gas milage

looking at vans and i found a good deal on 95 e-150 with a 5.8,wondering what they will get for milage, what will the v-6 do? thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-24-2006, 08:39 PM
Fordcr Fordcr is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 267
Fordcr is starting off with a positive reputation.
my 92 5.8 was about 14mpg
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-24-2006, 09:10 PM
babbler babbler is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 58
babbler is starting off with a positive reputation.
thanks for the reply
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-26-2006, 08:12 PM
2fords2 2fords2 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: fort smith, ar
Posts: 175
2fords2 is starting off with a positive reputation.
my 95 5.8L gets 12-13 in town , 15-16 on the highway...17 with a tail wind.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-26-2006, 09:25 PM
pfogle's Avatar
pfogle pfogle is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oak Harbor, OH
Posts: 8,122
pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.pfogle has a good reputation on FTE.
patfogle DaPocky
My '92 E150 with a 351 got 13~14 in town, and 16~18 on the highway.
__________________
1996 F150 Regular cab, SWB, 4.9. 5speed.
- Curiosity is the root of learning. Be curious, and in turn share what you know with the curious.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-27-2006, 07:27 AM
HomerWinzlow's Avatar
HomerWinzlow HomerWinzlow is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lawton, Oklahoma
Posts: 3,392
HomerWinzlow is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.HomerWinzlow is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
If its a nice heavy van, a V6 might be worse, not to mention pretty gutless. I have a 5.0 liter and its pretty sluggish in a full length conversion van.
__________________
My advice is just advice..Its free "IF THAT DONT FIX IT, SOMETHING ELSE WILL"
The most expensive tool in your box is "impatience"

IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!

My Missing Michelle
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-28-2006, 01:47 PM
baddad457 baddad457 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: south louisiana
Posts: 6,691
baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.
My 95 has always gotten anywhere from 11-14 mpg. Never more, never less. Towing, not towing, it don't matter.
__________________
89 Ranger supercab-- 302-4bbl-- 4 speed 68 Mercury Monterey 390 4 bbl C-6 77 F100 400M C-6 67 Mustang fastback 427 2-4
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-28-2006, 05:10 PM
Gene W's Avatar
Gene W Gene W is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 618
Gene W is starting off with a positive reputation.
My '94 Chateau with 351, E4OD and 3:55 got 10 mpg consistently, no matter what I did with it, highway, city and towing. I did a little work on it a while back in response to a problem it was having and my city mileage has improved to a fairly consistent 12 and I got nearly 17 on the highway recently, but the road, the traffic and the weather were all perfect.

The injection system changed at some point in '95 or maybe '96. If it has a mass airflow sensor, it has the newer system and is capable of getting a little better mileage than my '94.

Also take into account how the van is equipped and the intended purpose. A bare bones E150 service van might do better, that a Clubwagon. A conversion van will be heavier and the aerodynamics will likely be worse (if that is possible) and of course a cargo van will depend on how much load you carry in it.

Your mileage will definitely vary. I would stay away from the V6.

Gene
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2006, 11:42 AM
baddad457 baddad457 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: south louisiana
Posts: 6,691
baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.
Actually the aerodynamics of a conversion van would be better, most sit lower to the ground. Not talking about the "high top" ones though.
__________________
89 Ranger supercab-- 302-4bbl-- 4 speed 68 Mercury Monterey 390 4 bbl C-6 77 F100 400M C-6 67 Mustang fastback 427 2-4
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-01-2006, 12:03 PM
Gene W's Avatar
Gene W Gene W is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 618
Gene W is starting off with a positive reputation.
They aren't any lower, they just have the hot pants kits on them that give them the appearance of being lower.

If they have fitted wheels and tires that are effectively smaller diameter, they may be marginally lower. I don't know if they are still running lower profile automotive tires on conversions like they did in the old days, but I wouldn't want one configured that way. If they lower the profile, they should increase the wheel diameter in a true +1 or +2 configuration, which would have no effect on ride height.

The front air dam is a two edged sword in that it diverts some of the air from going under the van and creating drag on the rough underside but also creates drag by presenting a larger front profile for the van. There may actually be some benefit to the lift generated by the air going under the stock van in the form of less rolling resistance.

The fender flairs and running boards would have to be all drag. I can see no aerodynamic benefit to them.

I think these items are more of a styling exercise than aero aides, which brings us back to the added weight that conversions carry. That's always a bad thing.

Gene
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-07-2006, 08:33 AM
kevin-11 kevin-11 is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 154
kevin-11 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Post Gas Mileage ,1994 E-250, 351- 1995 E-150 302

Hello There, Have a 1994 E-250, 351 EFI ,Auto Over Drive ,Hi Top. Gets 11 mpg around town and only slightly better on the Highway. Great motor (74K original miles) lots of torque. Also have a 1995 E-150 low top, 5.0 L EFI, Auto overdrive, (129 K miles), gets 16 mpg around town and 18-19 mpg on Highway.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-07-2006, 10:50 AM
baddad457 baddad457 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: south louisiana
Posts: 6,691
baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene W
They aren't any lower, they just have the hot pants kits on them that give them the appearance of being lower.

If they have fitted wheels and tires that are effectively smaller diameter, they may be marginally lower. I don't know if they are still running lower profile automotive tires on conversions like they did in the old days, but I wouldn't want one configured that way. If they lower the profile, they should increase the wheel diameter in a true +1 or +2 configuration, which would have no effect on ride height.

The front air dam is a two edged sword in that it diverts some of the air from going under the van and creating drag on the rough underside but also creates drag by presenting a larger front profile for the van. There may actually be some benefit to the lift generated by the air going under the stock van in the form of less rolling resistance.

The fender flairs and running boards would have to be all drag. I can see no aerodynamic benefit to them.

I think these items are more of a styling exercise than aero aides, which brings us back to the added weight that conversions carry. That's always a bad thing.

Gene
Well, seeing that my 95 conversion van gets better mileage than your Chateau, that seems to blow your theory out of the water My mileage has never varied off the 11-14 mpg since new. Even after the switch from the stock wheels and tires to the ones I have now: 15x8.5's front, shod with 235/70'snd rear with 15x10's shod with 275/60's. It now sits about 1-2" lower with these than the 29" stockers. Handles a little better too with it's wider stance. Looks a damn sight better now that the tires fill up the fender flares.
__________________
89 Ranger supercab-- 302-4bbl-- 4 speed 68 Mercury Monterey 390 4 bbl C-6 77 F100 400M C-6 67 Mustang fastback 427 2-4
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-07-2006, 12:06 PM
Gene W's Avatar
Gene W Gene W is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 618
Gene W is starting off with a positive reputation.
baddad,

Antidotal evidence is fairly useless. If you look at the post in this thread alone, you will notice that individual results vary widely. I have seen claims in previous post for vans similar to mine as high a 18mpg. Some people will state the best mileage that they ever got as being the norm. I did not. Driving conditions and driving styles make a lot of difference in mpg as well.

You said you put on new tires and wheels that lowered the van 1" to 2", yet your mileage has "never varied off the 11-14 mark since new." That shoots your theory in the foot. Why didn't your mileage improve? Did you correct your speedometer to reflect the new tire diameters?

Some of the newer style high tops could improve airflow over the top. Maybe. You would be hard pressed to prove that any of the visual aides added around the lower edge of conversion vans has any positive effect on lowering drag numbers. Particularly at the speeds that vans operate at. I would like to see the claims of any manufacture that says they will lower drag.

Gene
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-07-2006, 06:59 PM
baddad457 baddad457 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: south louisiana
Posts: 6,691
baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.baddad457 has a very good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene W
baddad,

Antidotal evidence is fairly useless. If you look at the post in this thread alone, you will notice that individual results vary widely. I have seen claims in previous post for vans similar to mine as high a 18mpg. Some people will state the best mileage that they ever got as being the norm. I did not. Driving conditions and driving styles make a lot of difference in mpg as well.

You said you put on new tires and wheels that lowered the van 1" to 2", yet your mileage has "never varied off the 11-14 mark since new." That shoots your theory in the foot. Why didn't your mileage improve? Did you correct your speedometer to reflect the new tire diameters?

Some of the newer style high tops could improve airflow over the top. Maybe. You would be hard pressed to prove that any of the visual aides added around the lower edge of conversion vans has any positive effect on lowering drag numbers. Particularly at the speeds that vans operate at. I would like to see the claims of any manufacture that says they will lower drag.

Gene
I did nothing to the speedo after the tire/wheel change. But all in all, your arguements are no better than mine. The difference in mileage in all models is miniscule.. so it's pointless to say conversion vans get worse mileage than the others.
__________________
89 Ranger supercab-- 302-4bbl-- 4 speed 68 Mercury Monterey 390 4 bbl C-6 77 F100 400M C-6 67 Mustang fastback 427 2-4
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 06:59 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Ford Vans and other vehicles > 1968-2013 Full Size Vans

Tags
58, 95, chateau, conversion, e150, f150, ford, gallon, gas, good, milage, miles, mpg, towing, van

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gas milage for a 93' 5.8L V8 (351) sristr01 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 22 03-21-2008 04:16 PM
89 F-250 Trans 86caprirs 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 6 02-20-2008 03:24 PM
f250 5.8 gas milage fordnissanpower 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 2 08-03-2006 11:19 PM
Bad gas milage 5.8L '95 F250 dools 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 11 01-26-2005 09:22 PM
bad gas milage '95 F250 5.8L dools Small Block V8 (221, 260, 289, 5.0/302, 5.8/351W) 6 01-26-2005 03:40 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup