Notices
1978 - 1996 Big Bronco  
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

only 14mpg help!

 
  #16  
Old 11-14-2005, 03:12 PM
bgblktruk
bgblktruk is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: California
Posts: 346
bgblktruk is starting off with a positive reputation.
Stop your complaining. That is not only better than average, its damn good. I think that exhaust and O2 sensor are a problem although I will add, if you're getting mileage that good I can't imagine what you'd get with it all proper like.

Mike
 
  #17  
Old 11-14-2005, 06:52 PM
Katmandu's Avatar
Katmandu
Katmandu is offline
Elder User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Troy,Ohio
Posts: 546
Katmandu is starting off with a positive reputation.
Arrow

Originally Posted by bgblktruk
Stop your complaining. That is not only better than average, its damn good.
I agree. Fullsize Broncos are VERY HEAVY vehicles with VERY POOR Aerodynamics. No matter how well you tune or tweak it, your MPG will NOT get much better PERIOD.

Oh yea, those claiming 20 MPGs are full of ****.
 
  #18  
Old 11-14-2005, 07:41 PM
greystreak92's Avatar
greystreak92
greystreak92 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gateway to the West
Posts: 9,147
greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.
Originally Posted by bremen242
This is the second time I've seen you post that. I am calling you out.

Having an O2 sensor in the passenger side will not cause a very lean condition. The O2 sensor measures the percentage of the unburnt oxygen in the exhaust and unburnt gas. It does not measure volume of oxygen or gas, it just compares the one to the other.

If your theory was correct, his motor would go into limp mode, and would get a lot worse mileage than 14mpg.

I will agree, however, it could give an erroneous reading if one bank is running leaner or richer than the other. I also think you should have it in a crossover pipe for a better reading of the whole motor.

I just wanted to point this out, I've seen you post a lot of great information, but I cringe when I see this.
First off, I will grant that I mistyped the word LEAN. It should be RICH... and this is why.

The fact of the matter is that the sensor is an oxygen-reactive variable resistance type sensor. It does not compare anything. It alters its resistance value (via the chemical makeup of the probe at its tip) based on the oxygen levels to which it is exposed. At very high oxygen levels its resistance value is approximately 0.1 volt and at low oxygen levels the resistance is approximately 0.9 volts.

IF the O2 sensor is to get an accurate reading it MUST be able to sense the exhaust from BOTH banks of cylinders. If not, the bank NOT sending any exhaust past the sensor could feasibly be belching raw fuel or ONLY air and the O2 sensor would not recognize the problem! (Fortunately YOU would because the thing wouldn't run very well if at all). The computer will take that reading and interpret it based on preprogrammed parameters within the software for that particular engine/vehicle. The computer cannot adapt its programming to the oxygen levels expected to be found in a four-cylinder engine. It will take the resistance value and apply it as though the entire engine were being analyzed rather than just four cylinders from it. While the sensor does not measure volume, it does react to the level of oxygen in the exhaust. Since it is NOT capable of COMPARING exhaust gas-to-oxygen levels, the reading (since its only coming from only ONE bank of cylinders) will register at the computer as being RICH because there will be HALF as much oxygen present in the exhaust from ONE bank than there will be from both banks. The O2 sensor ONLY reads oxygen levels and does not know that there is proportionately less exhaust gas as well as less oxygen.

So to your point, you are correct it would NOT yield a lean condition but rather a rich condition. Either of which will be detrimental to your fuel mileage since the lowered fuel delivery that results will make the engine work harder to achieve the same torque, speed, etc.
 
  #19  
Old 11-14-2005, 07:44 PM
SoCal_351
SoCal_351 is offline
New User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2
SoCal_351 is starting off with a positive reputation.
I wish I got remotely close to 20mpg :|


I get 12 on average.

Then again, I'm assuming I'll drive maybe 4k miles a year total in my brick, all it does is haul my yz-250, yzf-350 to Glamis or El Mirage.

Not bad IMO, bought the baby about a year ago, with 93k miles for $2370. she now has 95,700 and some change

Very Clean, only repair I had to do to her so far was brakes

94 Bronco XLT
 
  #20  
Old 11-14-2005, 07:50 PM
Blue'87GT
Blue'87GT is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hanscom AFB, MA
Posts: 267
Blue'87GT is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by farmtwuck
Are you talking about the trip from Kansas City, MO to Salina, KS? I don't think you can really characterize that as "flat". Sounds like decent mileage for a trip through the Flint Hills.


Now Salina west is a different story.
Agreed, there are some pretty good hills between Topeka and Junction City. (JC guy here) From west Salina to Eastern Colorado is FLAT though!
 
  #21  
Old 11-14-2005, 07:56 PM
Salmonhead
Salmonhead is offline
Junior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: OREGON
Posts: 63
Salmonhead is starting off with a positive reputation.
Just curious, did you adjust your milage for the 31" tires? My XL came with the little tires and there is about 7 % difference on the speedo. Mine is lifted a couple of inches with the spoiler off and a 3 bar roof rack and gets about 14 (10 pulling my 21' camper). When it was new I recall getting 17 on a long trip.
 
  #22  
Old 11-16-2005, 02:59 PM
farmtwuck
farmtwuck is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 303
farmtwuck is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by Blue'87GT
Agreed, there are some pretty good hills between Topeka and Junction City. (JC guy here) From west Salina to Eastern Colorado is FLAT though!
Yes sir it is! I've traveled I-70 a lot between Denver and KC. KC to Salina is pretty nice; the rest is pretty boring. The worst stretch is the KS/CO state line west. YAWNNNNNNN! Not a lot of places to stop either.
 
  #23  
Old 11-16-2005, 10:07 PM
redwood's Avatar
redwood
redwood is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pelahatchie, MS
Posts: 742
redwood is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
I'm in an 86 F150 4x4 with 31" tires, a 351W HO, 600cfm Edelbrock, dual exhaust, and a fresh tune up. Runs great. Last mileage figured was 9.8 mpg. I envy all of you.....
 
  #24  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:26 AM
gov2mod
gov2mod is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware
Posts: 391
gov2mod is starting off with a positive reputation.
My 93 Bronco 5.0 with E4OD, 3:55 gears and 31x10.50x15's gets about 13 highway.
My 90 Bronco 5.0 with AOD, 3:55 gears and 33x12.50x15's gets about 10 highway.
My 90 F150 5.0 with AOD, 3:55 gears got 17.08 on a 100 mile trip but only about 55-60 mph. Same truck ran up to PA. to pick up a 351W, C6, and 5.0 short block got 10 mpg. But, I was running 70-80 mph, had hills, and a load on the return trip.
My 87 F250 6.9 with C6, 4:10 gears and 265/75/16's gets 10mpg no matter what.
I've never checked my 91 Bronco 5.8, E4OD, 3:55, and 31x10.50x15's but don't really care. You should feel fortunate to get 14mpg.
I should add that my driving habits are generally to leave the pedal on the floor until I reach the desired speed which is not conducive to good mileage with any stop and go driving.
 

Last edited by gov2mod; 11-17-2005 at 12:31 AM.
  #25  
Old 11-17-2005, 12:46 AM
greystreak92's Avatar
greystreak92
greystreak92 is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gateway to the West
Posts: 9,147
greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.greystreak92 has a great reputation on FTE.
Ok, Ok guys, so I confused my cities. I made the full drive from St. Louis to Denver. Anyone subjected to THAT much of I-70 is bound to lose track of where they are. Only changes I noted were that the corn and the soybeans occassionally swapped sides of the highway.
 
  #26  
Old 11-18-2005, 09:39 AM
Trucky18's Avatar
Trucky18
Trucky18 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ohia
Posts: 337
Trucky18 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by greystreak92
Ok, Ok guys, so I confused my cities. I made the full drive from St. Louis to Denver. Anyone subjected to THAT much of I-70 is bound to lose track of where they are. Only changes I noted were that the corn and the soybeans occassionally swapped sides of the highway.
Yep that is a cwapy drive, I did it in a bus which wouldnt go more than 62 that sucked
 
  #27  
Old 11-18-2005, 01:00 PM
wozxxx86
wozxxx86 is offline
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 439
wozxxx86 is starting off with a positive reputation.
my bronco is an 88' 5.0 with aod. i have 32's on it, true duals and k&n i used to get around 17. but 30000 miles later im down to around 15, it now has 228*** miles on it.
 
  #28  
Old 11-21-2005, 06:28 PM
matt351
matt351 is offline
New User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dade City, Florida
Posts: 5
matt351 is starting off with a positive reputation.
Damn good mileage at 14mpg

I wish I got 14 MPG in mine. I get HIGHWAY 9-10mpg. I got a 351w, true duals, 32's, and 4bbl holly.
 
  #29  
Old 11-21-2005, 07:44 PM
andym's Avatar
andym
andym is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hartsville SC
Posts: 19,325
andym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputationandym has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by 71 Muddbugg
I just drove my '95 bronco on a 490mile trip, all highway, and only got 14 mpg. It has a 302 auto and runs like a top. It has dual exhaust and 31" rubber.
Everybody missed a real important point - with 31" tires, the speedo will be about 10% off. Ditto with your odometer. If you're doing 60mph, you're really doing 65 mph. Your mileage calculations will be off by a bit.

Also, what everyone is else saying is right - you have no business complaining about 14 mpg.
 
  #30  
Old 11-22-2005, 06:01 AM
bremen242's Avatar
bremen242
bremen242 is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: GANS
Posts: 3,735
bremen242 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.bremen242 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Originally Posted by andym
Everybody missed a real important point - with 31" tires, the speedo will be about 10% off. Ditto with your odometer. If you're doing 60mph, you're really doing 65 mph. Your mileage calculations will be off by a bit.

Also, what everyone is else saying is right - you have no business complaining about 14 mpg.
in that case, he got around 12.6 mpg. a little low..
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: only 14mpg help!


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.