Well, it seems to me that fuel milage depends on aerodinamics more then on weight, Yes, 2.3 has a bit better fuel milage, but comoparing my 3.0 aero with 2.3 I can say that difference is about 5-7% only. My friends 2.3 aero runs with wide open throutly, my runs with 1/3-1/2 gas only.... Difference is not so notisable. But 3.0 may easily run with bad fuel (oct. 80), 2.3 runs well with oct.87-93 gas only.
Low octane fuel is not a problem here, the lowest grade fuel we have is 87 octane.
Actually it is 85 octane, easily found for those that live at higher altitudes.
Aero-fan, if you really want to do the swap, DO IT!
But like what others have said, there is no guarentee that you will get 30mpg. So if you don't, please don't be disapointed. It would be cool to see a late model Aero with a 4 banger/5-speed.
__________________ '96 Ford Contour 2.0 I4 MTX 77k mi- Rear Ended 12/22/07 '97 Ford Aerostar AWD 4.0L v6 AT 81kmi '97 Chevy Lumina 3.1 v6 ATX 135k mi Parents old beater, temp vehicle
Vango said "Before you generalize smaller engine fuel economy, ask 3.0 Aerostar owners what they are really getting."
But I'm not generalizing, and I understand that there are circumstances that a smaller engine does not necessarily equate to higher gas mileage. I knew a guy once who had an E150 full size van with a 250 straight six in it. He also had an otherwise identical E150 with a 302 V8 in it and he said the 302 van actually got slightly better gas mileage than his 6 banger van. So I know what you're saying, but the fact remains: more often than not the same vehicle with a more miserly engine will usually achieve better overall gas mileage. That doesn't always mean the lower powered engine tradeoff is worth it, but better fuel economy is a benefit that usually comes with the smaller engine. Also, I've read many posts here with 3.0 drivers reporting 22-24 mpg and 4.0 drivers in the teens usually (albeit many of them are AWD).
"As I read the new govnt figures on fuel economy, ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml ) the 3.0 gets exactly what my 4.0 does in city, hi-way and combined MPG. Unfortunately they don't list a 4.0, I am going off of my own records."
Well if your 4.0 is getting the "exact same mileage" both on the highway and in the city as a 3.0 does, then consider yourself very fortunate. You must be driving very gingerly to achieve that. According to the link you provide, most years report the 4.0 as having less fuel mileage than the 3.0. I didn't check every year, but take a look at 1993 models as a typical example:
As we can see city mileage is comparable (although even there the 3.0 achieves ~7% better fuel economy), but highway mileage is clearly better for the 3.0. And based on what you said "a couple more miles per gallon isn't going to ease your wallet much" you apparently feel a "mere" 2 mpg is almost meaningless. But really, it isn't. Going from 20 to 22 mpg is a 10% increase in fuel economy. That's a significant boost and depending on how much you drive your aerostar, AND depending on just how high gas prices are going to go, it could save you more than a few $$ at today's prices. One way to look at it is to visually imagine yourself on a dark, desolate highway and having exactly one gallon of gas to propel you and your vehicle a certain distance. The 4.0 van will take you 20 miles and then conk out. The 3.0 will take you that 20 miles and then 2 whole more miles...that's a lot! Ever walk 2 miles? It's quite a distance, and the 3.0 van will go that much further for every gallon you consume. Another way of looking at it is this: it's the same thing as either paying $3.25 gallon or $2.92 gallon. I don't know about you, but if I'm driving around and see gas at $2.92 at one station, and $3.25 at another right next to it, I'm *definitely* going to get the $2.92 gas, which I would perceive as being much cheaper (being 10% less). Don't you agree? When you add up those savings with every fillup, compounded for several years while factoring in where gas prices are going, then we're talking about some pretty serious savings.
Lastly, here's a link for the 1986 4 cylinder 2.3 aerostar mileage:
As you can see, using the newer more stringent EPA ratings, it gets 23 mpg city, 26 mpg highway. Using the older EPA ratings it's 26/29 mpg. And this is what was achieved using 1986 technology, imagine what might be achieved using a more modern updated computerized F/I system? 28-30 mpg may truly be achievable in an aerostar!
Right, tc2468, that is a sammy, we call it the old name, "spitz"
And, Aero-Fan: Here is a thought for you to consider regarding wheel weight:
Imagine when you were a kid, with your bicycle turned upside down, resting on handlebars.. Now, you are pedaling your crank arms, by hand, as fast as you can,
remember? The wheel is raging. If you had a 10speed or something similar, you
probably tried, in an effort for max speed, to run at the highest gear...But, now,
you cannot rotate those crank arms at the crazy speed you were turning them a minute ago, it is impossible! The wheel's weight will resist your strength, and yet it weighs almost nothing. Yea, it will be spinning faster, but in 1st gear your arm can
rotate those cranks at max speed, now, in 10th gear, no way to achieve those revs.
Imagine spinning a wheel that wieghs 47 lbs, as compared to ounces. No way! The energy required is huge, and it takes energy to keep it spinning, just like the wind resistance at highway speed keeps resisting your motor from going faster and faster.
A 'flywheel' effect only stores some energy for a potential later use, it will take energy
(read: gas) to keep that sucker spinning, especially if it is heavy...
Note: "Tire rack" has a good story online, they put light wheels on a fullsize bmw,
and conducted before/after tests for highway gas milage--1.2 mpg better over like 3500 miles. A side note is they did notice the ride was worse, factory/heavy wheels
dampen tar strips/ potholes.
If you do go on a hunt for light wheels, be prepared for dissapointment, nowadays
almost all aftermarket wheels are made in china and they are HEAVY.
You gotta spend a lot to get a forged wheel, unless you get some ranger rims,
they are forged and there are several styles out there.
Very high quality, after hours of aggressive buffing, i never got rid of the turning
(toolpath) marks. On an old suzuki samuri, i removed those toolmarks by hand with scotchbrite! (cheap heavy castings).
Another note, a lot of the guys that are obsessed with their "ricers" will look
long and hard for light wheels, it is one of their speed 'secrets'.
Attn: aero-fan.. I agree 100%, 2 MPG is a huge saving in money over the long haul,
especially when it's low to begin with, like our vans. I looked at a 2.3 Aero that was for sale, did not bite right away, and a week later it was sold, darn it.
Now i'm stuck with the 4.0 (good deal on price) and it drinks gas, to me..but as bad as jeeps's 4.0 ! I would like to do what you are interested in, Pablos diesel conversion is just too difficult/time consuming for me...
Marty, all other things being equal, the heavier wheels will not consume more power (and fuel) when at steady state speeds on level ground. It is true that a heavier wheel with a higher moment of inertia will require more power (i.e. fuel) to accelerate up to whatever angular and linear speed you wish to achieve. It's also true that as you drive up hills/inclines the van's engine will have to perform the additional work of rolling those heavier wheels up the hills when compared to otherwise comparable, but lighter wheels. But really, I suspect the average energy lost due to both the higher moment of inertia associated with heavier wheels and the energy lost due to "carrying" the heavier wheels up hills is probably fairly negligible. If it did make a meaningful difference we'd hear about it at the car dealer as a selling point (other than looks). Especially considering the small net weight difference when compared to the total vehicle weight. Also, the bicycle tire scenario you describe earlier is something I'm familiar with. But the resistance you feel while trying to keep the wheel spinning at a constant speed is not due to the wheel's mass. It's primarily because of the friction being caused by the wheel bearings, the chain, freehub/freewheel, tire/wheel imbalances and most importantly because of the aerodynamic drag caused by the spokes stirring up the air as the wheel spins (especially at higher speeds). Again, the wheel is NOT slowing down once you stop spinning it because it's heavy...to the contrary its weight helps keep it spinning, not the other way around. In fact, if the wheel were very lightweight (but was otherwise identical), it would slow down much more rapidly.
As you can see, using the newer more stringent EPA ratings, it gets 23 mpg city, 26 mpg highway. Using the older EPA ratings it's 26/29 mpg. And this is what was achieved using 1986 technology, imagine what might be achieved using a more modern updated computerized F/I system? 28-30 mpg may truly be achievable in an aerostar!
Thanks for the response Aero-fan. You made some good points. The 2.3 may produce some respectable mileage. It's going to be a real dog though. You will have to drive it differently and towing will be limited. It's probably why Ford killed it so early. Granted, today's fuel prices are sparking interest in sacrificing power for mileage.
I hope you can do it and are able to recoup the conversion cost early enough to start realizing some real return on your investment. For my money a cheap car like my Escort will start paying off quicker at an avg 32 MPG and I still have my strong 4.0 Aero for towing and hauling. It's not out of pocket for me because I sold a V8 Dodge van gas hog to get the Escort. The Aero and a 4X8 trailer make up for the Dodge. That's an argument I have often when friends buy a motorcycle to get better mileage. They just took on an additional monthly payment + insurance thinking they are saving money. If you don't replace something, you aren't saving. But that's another subject....
Attn: aero-fan.. I agree 100%, 2 MPG is a huge saving in money over the long haul,
especially when it's low to begin with, like our vans. I looked at a 2.3 Aero that was for sale, did not bite right away, and a week later it was sold, darn it.
Now i'm stuck with the 4.0 (good deal on price) and it drinks gas, to me..but as bad as jeeps's 4.0 ! I would like to do what you are interested in, Pablos diesel conversion is just too difficult/time consuming for me...
Assuming you drove 10K miles / year, 2 MPG comes to approx $138 at $3/gal. If you do anything to you van, how long would it take to pay back and then start making you money. That's the question you have to ask when you start modding. e.g. an underdrive pulley for the 4.0 is $300 and will give you 1MPG.
Start adding up the ROI for every mod, figure out how long you will drive your van and go from there.
Vango, I think we're in agreement. I have a Honda Civic Si and an F250 p/u. Like you, the honda is the daily driver and the Ford truck is for haulin' and ballin. And yeah, the 2.3 aerostar would probably be a turd. Certainly very limited in tow capacity. But the newer 2.3's have about 120 hp which in my view just barely gets it out of the turd category. If I manage to find a 2.5 or maybe even the mazda one mentioned earlier, then it shouldn't be bad at all really. I remember my brother had an old 60's VW beater van with those bug engines in it, and talk about a TURD. That thing could barely break 55mph downhill .
Anyway, yeah I'm sure Ford killed the 2.3 aero because it was a turd and gas was much cheaper back then. Who would bother with one when gas was $1.25 a gallon? But with gas now consistently above $3/gallon and going who knows how high, it just might be time to revisit - THE TURD.
One other thing to think about if you want to tow anything with your smaller displacement 4 cylinder powered Aerostar: it will not provide as much braking power as a larger engine, so you really have to plan ahead for stops as well as starts.
One of the big reasons that the van will get similar city gas mileage with 3 or 4 liter engines is the stop and go factor; it will take the same amount of energy to accelerate the van to speed regardless of which engine is used. You will open the throttle more on the smaller engine, which should net you some additional efficiency. This is where a heavier car will need more energy than a lighter car. This is also where heavier wheels will hurt you; the greater inertial moment will take more energy to get rolling. That's all energy you will scrub off at the next traffic stop. Now if you can install a regenerative braking system with hybrid drive capability, you can recapture some of that energy.
At freeway speeds, the aerodynamics become the dominant resistance that the engine has to push against. Despite its name, the Aerostar is not very aerodynamic. I think its drag coefficient is around 0.45, and combined with the large frontal area, results in a very high drag factor. Here, not even a hybrid drive train will help. So it really pays to drive slower.
My primary commute vehicle since year 2000 is a 1995 GT Zaskar, which gets about 20 miles per cheeseburger. Here in SoCal, I have far more days in which I can ride than in states that experience real winter. My worst commutes are in rainy days; it takes a lot of work to get everything dried out after riding through a good rain. Fuel costs are definitely low, but I just had to rebuild a wheel at the cost of about $100. That's more than some fancy automobile wheels, and it definitely won't last as long. And that cranking by hand at different gears analogy has a little flaw: When you put the drive train into the highest gear to crank it as fast as you can, you are trying to turn the wheel faster, which will generate greater resistance from the bearings, the spokes and tire will stir up the air more, and that's what's requiring more energy. My new wheel weighs about 25% more than the one it replaced, and I can assure you that once it is spun up to the same speed as the lighter wheel, it takes the same amount of energy to keep it spinning at that speed as does the lighter wheel. But getting there takes more energy, just like the heavier wheels on automobiles.
Watch out for really light weight forged wheels. Not only do they cost more, they may not be strong enough for street use. There were a couple of years during which BMW equipped their M3 with some ultralight BBS wheels in the 18" size. They also used very low profile tires to keep the diameters consistent. Drivers who so much as touched a curb with them would dent them, and found out they cost about $350 each to replace. Some places claim they can fix them, but an aluminum forging that's been dented and then bent back will be further weakened.
Vango, I think we're in agreement. I have a Honda Civic Si and an F250 p/u. Like you, the honda is the daily driver and the Ford truck is for haulin' and ballin. And yeah, the 2.3 aerostar would probably be a turd. Certainly very limited in tow capacity. But the newer 2.3's have about 120 hp which in my view just barely gets it out of the turd category. If I manage to find a 2.5 or maybe even the mazda one mentioned earlier, then it shouldn't be bad at all really. I remember my brother had an old 60's VW beater van with those bug engines in it, and talk about a TURD. That thing could barely break 55mph downhill .
Anyway, yeah I'm sure Ford killed the 2.3 aero because it was a turd and gas was much cheaper back then. Who would bother with one when gas was $1.25 a gallon? But with gas now consistently above $3/gallon and going who knows how high, it just might be time to revisit - THE TURD.
I had a turbo 2.3 in my '88 T-bird Turbocoupe. It cranked out 190 HP from the factory. Some guys on the forum were getting 250HP out of them. Mileage wasn't great making all that power and the T-birds are heavy. The top end was 140mph though. The guys with the turbo 2.3 SVO Mustangs had some real sleepers
If you find an old junker B2600i, most of them have the 5 speed trans, and the 2.6L can get good economy and is also at 120+ hp, so it would be a good candidate too if it can be obtained at a reasonable price.
__________________
My Rides
1994 Ford Aerostar 4.0L AWD extended
175,000 miles
Fullblown 50 series catback system
590 watt sound system
AFE ProDryS filter
1990 Mazda B2600i
505,000 miles
Custom exhaust with BearCats high flow converter and a straight through muffler
Custom high velocity intake with AFE ProDryS filter
XLT - Hehe I used to have a 2001 GT Zaskar, loved that bike. 2001 was the last year the US made models were sold. And I also happen to be in SoCal at the moment (don't live here tho), I see a lot of bikers around when I'm out on my hikes. If I lived here I'd be biking all the time too, you're lucky to have this climate. And I also just recently bought a new set of wheels, dropped $750 on them. Yes folks, for those not familiar with higher end bicycle parts, that's $750 for two bicycle wheels! And that's without tires! As far as the aerostar, yeah I probably won't be able to tow much at all if I swap out a 4 cylinder. But for my needs, I usually dont tow anything anyway. I have an F250 and the only thing I've towed with it in 5 years is a motorized post hole digger once - something even my Honda could have handled.
Vango my old roommate had an SVO T-bird. It had some juice, but unfortunately like you said the fuel economy was comparable to a 302 powered T-bird. Plus the turbo 2.3 was not as durable as the 5.0, so in my opinion it wasn't the best choice for high performance. I suspect if I transplanted one in an aerostar the mileage would likewise be reduced, possibly even below that of a 3.0 or a 4.0 (unless I always babied the throttle and constantly kept the motor in the turbo lag zone). Also, the low end torque would probably be pretty crappy (essential for driveability in a heavier vehicle). On the other hand, the power would definitely be there in spades if you needed it.
.
