Hi all, I just got a very nice 2000 E 250 van with a 6cly. I thought it would do good on gas, well was I wrong! Got 12.7 and I drive slow! 60 mph at most. I need to know a few things, why is the engine pipe crushed down from the factory? and is a K&N filter available? And is anyone up on the reason for such bad mileage?? Thanks!! Jim

 

...Welcome to Ford Truck Enthusiasts!
Stick around someone will be by shortly to answer your question.
We are happy you have chosen the best source for Fords!

Enjoy FTE....and
JOIN CLUB FTE -SUPPORT THE FORUMS!
…..See you on the boards.

 

Don't feel bad, my E-150 4.9-6 conversion van gets only 14 mpg.

Don't waste your money on a K&N filter element. I have one in mine and didn't do anything but lighten my wallet by $44!

 

> why is the engine pipe crushed down from the factory?

What engine pipe and where is it located?

> anyone up on the reason for such bad mileage

Big (basically a square), tall, heavy (6k pounds?), and might be geared low with that engine.

If you want max. MPG you have to keep it to 55 since it is at 50 (wind drag) when your fuel economy starts to suffer in larger vehicles.

Might be tune up time with changing the fuel filter and all fluids to syn. In the smaller trucks (Bronco IIs) going syn in the transfer case and rear ends made a difference in gas mileage. I do not know if it would make enough of a difference in the bigger trucks to recoup the cost.

 

Shooting off the cuff here but I'd guess that an E-250 with a I6 is geared lower than a 150 with the same engine - higher RPMs = lower mileage. Plus, the 250 is simply heavier (hence the need for lower gearing) - heavier frame, heavier suspension parts, heavier wheels & tires, etc. - all that weight hurts mileage.

Oddly enough 6 cyl engines in vans don't seem to get great mileage. A friend bought an '95 E-150 van to and added a handicap lift to it. His mileage was worse than my '90 van with a 5.0 V8 with a raised roof. If he'd known, he would have gone with the V8 as the V6 was seriously underpowered pulling around the added weight.

I get in the low teens in mixed driving. Best ever was around 17 mpg when the cruise control worked.

 

The first time I noticed this phenomenon was when my dad was shopping for a new, bigger vehicle for our family back in 1988. We looked at Econoline conversions at the time. I recall looking at them and finding it striking that the sticker said the 4.9 I-6 got worse gas mileage than the 5.0 V-8. While those are obviously two totally different engines, and other things might be factors, that set me to thinking.

Since then, I've noticed that often with heavier vehicles like full size trucks and vans, a smaller engine will not get as many mpg as a larger one. I think it comes from many factors. For example, a 4.2 might need 4.10 gears to pull what my 5.4 does with 3.55's. My old 92 Ranger 4x2 had a 4.0L V-6, but it had 2.98 gears. It got about the same mpg as my 97 Ranger 4x2 2.3, which has a 4.10 axle, and the 4.0 had tons more power.

Another issue is that a person is going to need to use more throttle opening to get the same performance out of a smaller engine that they would from a larger engine. If we could force ourselves to use the same throttle opening, we'd probably have better economy with the smaller engines, but we'd have very poor acceleration. That's not even possible if you live in an area with a lot of traffic.

I think there's a tipping point at which a smaller engine becomes a disadvantage in MPG, and I think it's due to weight.

One other theory of mine in regards to engine size concerns durability. My hunch is that you're generally better off getting more engine than you need and working it lightly, instead of getting less engine than you need, or just enough, and working it hard all the time. Intuition says that an engine under constant strain won't last as long as one that isn't under constant stresses.

 

When I try to keep my 302 E150 van up on the highway, it spends way too much time in 2nd on a 3-spd non-AOD. It REALLY sucks the gas then, and still makes only "acceptable" power.

 

I had a GMC hi-top conversion van just like that. (Don't shoot me; it was a gift.) That van had a 350 and a TH700R4 4 speed trans with locking converter. And, some stupid idiot at the conversion van company had ordered the van with a 2.73 axle. Who would be so stupid as to put that gear on a 3/4 ton, heavy, hi-top van? That van would barely stay in 4th on flat ground at highway speeds. The original owner had the tranny rebuilt twice in 80k miles, most likely due to all the shifting.

What axle do you have in your van?

 

Yeah... I forget the ratio in my E-150, but my 302 had no trouble staying in 3rd gear even when overloaded with firewood going uphill. And I was being light on the throttle in an attempt to be easy on the drivetrain. Worked too - as the temp guage barely got into the "normal" range. I'll feel more confident on the next run after I get some over-load springs and proper XL-rated tires.