I guess there's not much potential for adding better fuel mileage to a 'sharpened brick' the size of an Aerostar.
But that's the thing, there IS clear potential for improving the gas mileage of 3.0 and 4.0 aerostars! Take another look at the gas mileage of the original aerostars that came with the 2.3 engine:
According to the old EPA ratings, the 2.3 aerostar with manual shift got 26 mpg city and 29 mpg highway. For a vehicle of the aerostar's size and utility, that's awesome! And this is what's achievable with 23 year old technology, imagine if all the modern fuel injection and engine management systems are brought to bear? I think an aerostar with the same power to weight ratio would exceed 30 mpg, or conversely a more powerful aero (than the original 2.3 model) could be built and still achieve the same excellent mileage.
It seems that auto manufacturers just don't produce "underpowered" cars anymore. It's like American drivers have become so spoiled with having a healthy margin of power in any car they drive, they will no longer buy new vehicles with marginal power (like the 2.3 aerostar or the old VW vans). At one time there was a place for these types of vehicles and people simply accepted that they weren't race cars and they were going to have to keep their highway speeds down to reasonable levels and also downshift when going up steep hills. But now almost no matter what modern car I rent and try out, it always has a decent amount of power...even if it's an econobox with a 4 cylinder, it usually will scream if you put the pedal to the floor. And I'm frequently pleasantly surprised that many of them have a real abundance of power (like the Toyota Highlander I rented a few years ago). But as much as I like that power, I have to admit that I usually don't really need it. I could easily get by with less, especially if it came with increased fuel mileage. And with gas approaching $4/gallon now and going who knows how high in the near future, I think we're going to start seeing a resurgence of vehicles reminiscent of the 2.3 aerostar. We all like powerful vehicles, but sooner or later something's gotta give when it comes to achieving better gas mileage.
Getting back to a 3.0 aerostar. I'm thinking by installing a manual trans, swapping out the 4.10 gears for 3.73 or 3.55, running synthetics all the way around, installing an electric cooling fan, and possibly tweaking the ECU - doing all these things might be able to get my 3.0 to achieve significantly better gas mileage. Also I'm thinking advancing the cam timing might help as well. Advancing cam timing increases low end torque and power at the expense of power at the higher rpm range. Essentially it would shift the power curve to a lower operational rpm range, and would slightly detune the engine away from it's max power output (closer to that of a smaller engine). But in exchange the engine would run stronger at the lower rpm range which would work better with the taller gears. It should enable the engine to run better within the rpm range you would mostly be driving in if you were concerned about good gas mileage. And overall I suspect it really would deliver better gas mileage, although I wouldn't know how much. It'd be interesting to hear from anyone else who might've tried something like this.
__________________
1997 Aerostar Extended 3.0 2WD, 28K miles
Ford wants to make new T-6 chassis for future RWD trucks vans and SUVs.
They want to use 3.5L DOHC V6 with 6-st tranny.... Some people say that there will be 3 new ford vehicles - F100, Bronco-III and aerostar.. I hear it for 2 years....may be it is true.....
I don't think the Aerostar ever came with 2.73 gears, so you would have to do the work of rebuilding the rear end to get these gears. But I like the idea of advancing the cam for better low end torque. Just don't make it too weak, because some day, you may have to haul around 6 passengers and all their stuff.
I believe the new EPA MPG figures are better representations of how people actually drive, so they are more realistic. Looks to be about 10% less than the old ratings. But I can believe 24MPG in a shorty van with a 4 cylinder engine.
By the way, I recently had to haul around one of my small block Ford v8s in the back of my 2WD van. Normally, that van feels like a hot rod compared to the 4wd van; it accelerates and brakes better, and it gets better gas mileage. But with just one lousy v8 sitting in the back, it felt almost as sluggish as the 4wd. And the rear end sagged.
I believe the new EPA MPG figures are better representations of how people actually drive, so they are more realistic. Looks to be about 10% less than the old ratings.
Yeah supposedly the newer EPA ratings are more accurate, but for me I've found they're less accurate and are overly conservative. The "official" EPA estimate for my Honda Civic is just 28mpg highway. I regularly achieve 32.5 mpg per tank driving mostly highway but still with some stop and go city/town driving thrown in too. Plus, although I don't drive like a maniac, I definitely don't hold back on the highway and regularly cruise at 75-80mph. And I still get more than 4 mpg better than the supposedly "realistic" EPA ratings indicate. I've heard a lot of other people say the same thing too. I imagine if I drove conservatively, stuck to the speed limit and drove only on the highway, I'd be getting more than 35mpg. So these newer EPA ratings seem overly lowballed, at least on my car and I suspect quite a few others too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlt4wd90
But I can believe 24MPG in a shorty van with a 4 cylinder engine.
A 2.3 aerostar will get way better than 24 mpg. Even according to the "new and improved" more conservative EPA ratings, it gets 26mpg highway. And if these ratings are similary lowballed as they are for my Honda, then it'll actually get about 29mpg highway...that's awesome for having that kind of volumetric cargo capacity!
__________________
1997 Aerostar Extended 3.0 2WD, 28K miles
I have a 93 4-ltr Aerostar.I have noticed winter economy is really bad, none of the newer fuel injection engines draw heat off of the intake, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed,only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through
this site http://carwaterguide.blogspot.com
i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.
Hi guys, I recently visited your site.I'm doing a Chemistry project and was wondering if HHO is a viable source of energy? Does it waste more energy than it uses?
My 93 4.0 2wd (3.55 gears) gets around 20-22 mpg highway. My dad gets 16-18 with his 94 4.0 4wd (3.73 gears). He had 2 3.0 shortys, got about 16-18 with them.
Smaller engines don't always get better mileage, they have to work harder to do the same work.
OHC engines seem to be more tolerant of higher RPMs than OHV, and can get better mileage at higher RPMs.
My 93 4.0 2wd (3.55 gears) gets around 20-22 mpg highway. My dad gets 16-18 with his 94 4.0 4wd (3.73 gears). He had 2 3.0 shortys, got about 16-18 with them.
Smaller engines don't always get better mileage, they have to work harder to do the same work.
OHC engines seem to be more tolerant of higher RPMs than OHV, and can get better mileage at higher RPMs.
The reason smaller engines usually get better mileage is for the very fact that they have to work harder. The more then throttle is, the less throttling losses there are. Think if you downshift your truck manually into 2nd or 1st going down a hill, and let off the gas. The engine trying to pull against the throttle valve is slowing you down/maintaining speed. So the more open the throttle valve is, the less losses you get.
__________________
- Ian
1987 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 2.9
Needs a lot of work, including some rot on the body, but shes getting there.
i get about the same mileage running empty with my 4000 lb '96 Aero EXT 4L as I do with my '05 Cummins/Dodge 7,800 lb 1 ton 6 speed. Towing mileage is far better with the Cummins engine
i attribute this to the far better efficiency of diesel engines and fuel
i will never go back to a gas engine for towing
one of these older junke yard road kill Sprinter/Mercedes 2.7L 5 cyl inline diesels would make an outstanding engine in an Aero . 160 hp turbo charged 20 mpg Tow Beast, 30 mpg plus empty on the freeway at 70 mph.
a Cummins 4BTB turbo charge engine with 5 speed would be outstanding also
I was thinking that a manual transmission in an Aero should get much better gas mileage than any automatic because of the way the torque converter slips so much. So I wonder if I can expect significantly better mileage if the TC can lock up in gear between shifts.
The torque converter should be locking up. If it doesn't, that could be part of the problem.
For a light vehicle, a smaller engine should get better mileage. But if loaded down to capacity, it seems to me that the bigger engine would handle it better. We regularly had 1300 lbs+ in the Aero and got 18-20 mpg out of it. I think a Vulcan would get quite a bit less, and take forever to get to highway speed. Not sure if a 2.3 would even move it.
__________________
Mike
93 Aerostar XL longbody 4.0l 2wd Family Truckster
96 Sable LS Duratec Catfish Hunter
96 Windstar LX 3.8l Wife's van
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubts" Mark Twain
On my 4wd van, I always feel that the transmission slips a lot at low speeds, as in 1st or 2nd gear, where I don't believe the TC should lock up. If I do a lot of city driving, that equates to a lot of slipping, and, consequently, poor gas mileage, and really heated transmission. Someone here mentioned part of the problem is that the TC has a very high stall speed, probably designed for a smaller engine with lower torque. That's why I wonder if it's possible to reprogram the transmission to aggressively lock the TC in between shifts. Either that, I would like to replace the TC with something that has a lower stall speed.
I read a number of tests made by users of heavy pickups powered by diesel engines, installing a bigger turbo charger helped them improve gas mileage. This is a result of the increased torque achieved with the turbo charger allowing them to pull their loads in a higher gear. The increased fuel needed to generate the power from the added boost is actually less than that required for running the engine at a higher speed but lower load.
