fuel saving upgrades v10
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: SOUTH JERSEY
MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING 9 TO 12MPG ON THE HIGHWAY SHOULD HAVE THIER VEHICLE CHECKED. I WAS GETTING 14.9 TO 15.4 ON HIGHWAY AT 70MPH 2000RPM PRIOR TO MY MODS. REMEMBER, YOU INDICATED YOU ARE DRIVING A 2000 EX WITH OVER 100,000 MILES. MABEY IT IS DUE FOR A TUNE UP.
Originally Posted by emptyd
This sounds way too good to be true. Most people are talking 9 to 12 MPG - let's call it 12. And you are getting 4.5 (or more) MPG better than the rest of us? That’s +37% (or more) MPG. I'd have to see the documentation to believe this. No offense intended, but this seems like the claims by the guys who tell us magnets on our fuel lines will save gas.
And did I understand you to say that only "a little" of your current MPGs came from the mods?
What am I missing!?!?
And did I understand you to say that only "a little" of your current MPGs came from the mods?
What am I missing!?!?
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Monsta
With the exception of the tranny. All fluid is either semi or full synthetic from the factory. A switch to mobil 1 or similar synth may help but I've never seen anyone report a solid increase in MPG from doing it. With the use of MERCON V in the 4R100 now approved, you can use that. it is (I believe) a synthetic base stock fluid.
It does but not much. The extra rolling resistance probably negates any gains.
No coil packs. Coil On Plugs for the modulars.
Crappy ones will certianly reduce MPG. Change 'em out at around 60-80K. Verify torque every 30K.
You're right, most exhausts can help with highway MPG.
However, the gains are minimal.
Programmers are not designed to increase MPG. The are designed to increase specific power throughout the RPM range by advancing the timing (typically). Real power increases need higher (more $$) 91+ octane fuel. No savings.
If you do this stuff you could probably see the same increase in MPG as you would if you added 10lbs of pressure to each tire. However, your lightened wallet would probably give you the most MPG increase due to the reduced sprung weight.
Want to increase highway efficiency? Reduce friction and pumping losses the best you can and increase your tire pressure. Realize that there are trade-offs with each "mod". Ford doesn't employ engineers with Masters and Doctorates for nothing. They have found the best balance between NVH, emissions & performance....for the dollar.
It does but not much. The extra rolling resistance probably negates any gains.
No coil packs. Coil On Plugs for the modulars.
Crappy ones will certianly reduce MPG. Change 'em out at around 60-80K. Verify torque every 30K.
You're right, most exhausts can help with highway MPG.
However, the gains are minimal.Programmers are not designed to increase MPG. The are designed to increase specific power throughout the RPM range by advancing the timing (typically). Real power increases need higher (more $$) 91+ octane fuel. No savings.
If you do this stuff you could probably see the same increase in MPG as you would if you added 10lbs of pressure to each tire. However, your lightened wallet would probably give you the most MPG increase due to the reduced sprung weight.
Want to increase highway efficiency? Reduce friction and pumping losses the best you can and increase your tire pressure. Realize that there are trade-offs with each "mod". Ford doesn't employ engineers with Masters and Doctorates for nothing. They have found the best balance between NVH, emissions & performance....for the dollar.
And I am not so sure about these MIT graduates... A Superchips programmer can add 100 ft. lbs of torque and 50 HP on virtually every diesel out there. Yet Ford does not include on stock. What would be Fords cost on 1,000,000 of them? Maybe $50 each? Obviously they missed that one. And that’s a BIG miss. So either these programmers damage your engine or Ford's MIT grads are not getting with the program.
Last edited by SPL Tech; Mar 31, 2007 at 02:26 PM.
Sit. Stay.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,308
Likes: 20
From: Washington State
The programmers can damage the engine by running at those extreme levels (diesel only BTW). Plus, it puts the ouput over what the transmission is rated to handle, therefore the tranny has to be "bumped" up to compensate reducing it's service life.
There are also emissions standards that the manaufactuere must meet. Ever see a chipped/tuned truck at those extreme levels take off? HUGE clouds of black smoke. Cool...in a manly kinda way but certainly woouldn't pass any EPA requirements placed on manufacturers.
The last sentance in my quoted post says it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had a tuner on my F-150 (04). Mileage stayed the same but I still had to use 91+. The 87 octane program simply allowed me to tune shift points and such. There was no gain. Certainly not "proof" but indicative of what hundreds of other users and the manufacturers of them will tell you.
Someone who reports they had such a large increase in MPG from a GAS tuner using the 87 program have more than likely calculated something wrong. Even the tuner manufactuers will tell you they don't tune for MPG. The tune for more POWER. You can't have both.
There are also emissions standards that the manaufactuere must meet. Ever see a chipped/tuned truck at those extreme levels take off? HUGE clouds of black smoke. Cool...in a manly kinda way but certainly woouldn't pass any EPA requirements placed on manufacturers.
The last sentance in my quoted post says it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had a tuner on my F-150 (04). Mileage stayed the same but I still had to use 91+. The 87 octane program simply allowed me to tune shift points and such. There was no gain. Certainly not "proof" but indicative of what hundreds of other users and the manufacturers of them will tell you.
Someone who reports they had such a large increase in MPG from a GAS tuner using the 87 program have more than likely calculated something wrong. Even the tuner manufactuers will tell you they don't tune for MPG. The tune for more POWER. You can't have both.
Posting Guru
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,199
Likes: 0
From: High Point, NC
I'm baaack...
I love this V10 for towing. Overall, I avgerage 9.6 mpg - not the solid 10 I was hoping for, but little better than my 5.4 did on a similar trip. I think I could better with mpg now I that I have the feel of it. for the intersate, i stuck to ~70 mph @ ~2800 rpms and ocaisionally let it go in to OD, where it dropped to ~2200 rpms. Just playing around once, i let fall behind (down to ~ 58 mph) on a hill and then put to the floor to see how fast i could get back up to speed - no problem, it dropped gears (2nd) and popped up to ~3500 rpms (if I remember right) and in less than a minute I was backing off and cruising again.
The big difference here was performance - this thing pulls like no tomorrow. Although I was not in "mountainous" terrain, it was a hilly terrain. One long and steep enough that the state felt the need to add a truck lane - took that one on with out loosing any speed.
It was just plain effortless
This was also the madien voyage for my Prodigy brake controller - man what a difference that made. No more white knuckle'ing stops. The truck stopped as smoothly as it accelerated.
I love this V10 for towing. Overall, I avgerage 9.6 mpg - not the solid 10 I was hoping for, but little better than my 5.4 did on a similar trip. I think I could better with mpg now I that I have the feel of it. for the intersate, i stuck to ~70 mph @ ~2800 rpms and ocaisionally let it go in to OD, where it dropped to ~2200 rpms. Just playing around once, i let fall behind (down to ~ 58 mph) on a hill and then put to the floor to see how fast i could get back up to speed - no problem, it dropped gears (2nd) and popped up to ~3500 rpms (if I remember right) and in less than a minute I was backing off and cruising again.
The big difference here was performance - this thing pulls like no tomorrow. Although I was not in "mountainous" terrain, it was a hilly terrain. One long and steep enough that the state felt the need to add a truck lane - took that one on with out loosing any speed.
It was just plain effortless
This was also the madien voyage for my Prodigy brake controller - man what a difference that made. No more white knuckle'ing stops. The truck stopped as smoothly as it accelerated.
New User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Towed my 40' 9,000lb boat triple axel boat trailer from Dallas to Ft. Meyers and back for spring break - 2800 mile round trip. Averaged 70mph in tow mode (about 2700 rpms) w/ cruise on most of trip - never downshifted on any hills - steamed right up them. 8 mpg via liaometer. Last year, same trip but with electric fans and no mechanical fan, averaged 1/2 mpg better mileage.
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Monsta
The programmers can damage the engine by running at those extreme levels (diesel only BTW). Plus, it puts the ouput over what the transmission is rated to handle, therefore the tranny has to be "bumped" up to compensate reducing it's service life.
There are also emissions standards that the manaufactuere must meet. Ever see a chipped/tuned truck at those extreme levels take off? HUGE clouds of black smoke. Cool...in a manly kinda way but certainly woouldn't pass any EPA requirements placed on manufacturers.
The last sentance in my quoted post says it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had a tuner on my F-150 (04). Mileage stayed the same but I still had to use 91+. The 87 octane program simply allowed me to tune shift points and such. There was no gain. Certainly not "proof" but indicative of what hundreds of other users and the manufacturers of them will tell you.
Someone who reports they had such a large increase in MPG from a GAS tuner using the 87 program have more than likely calculated something wrong. Even the tuner manufactuers will tell you they don't tune for MPG. The tune for more POWER. You can't have both.
There are also emissions standards that the manaufactuere must meet. Ever see a chipped/tuned truck at those extreme levels take off? HUGE clouds of black smoke. Cool...in a manly kinda way but certainly woouldn't pass any EPA requirements placed on manufacturers.
The last sentance in my quoted post says it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had a tuner on my F-150 (04). Mileage stayed the same but I still had to use 91+. The 87 octane program simply allowed me to tune shift points and such. There was no gain. Certainly not "proof" but indicative of what hundreds of other users and the manufacturers of them will tell you.
Someone who reports they had such a large increase in MPG from a GAS tuner using the 87 program have more than likely calculated something wrong. Even the tuner manufactuers will tell you they don't tune for MPG. The tune for more POWER. You can't have both.
And what do you mean "extreme levels"?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Sit. Stay.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,308
Likes: 20
From: Washington State
Originally Posted by SPL Tech
You told me the 4R100 was rated for 1,000 lbs of torque. Thats double what the V-10 puts out.
And what do you mean "extreme levels"?
And what do you mean "extreme levels"?
Extreme levels is anything over the 100+ more lb ft of torque that a tuner can provide to a diesel. Try that in a 4R100 and you'll have a nice pigsaw puzzle under your truck....unless of course you get it strengthed by one of the many aftermarket tranny builders like BTS.
Last edited by Monsta; Apr 4, 2007 at 12:47 PM.
New User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
K&N
If you are going to get the K&N then make sure you get the whole unit that replaces the pipe and has an open box (About $259.00)> I had the K&N just in the stock fileter box and my MPG went down! I now get about 13.5 in town - but I repalced my exhaust with a 5" engine to tail. I have a super chip too.
Senior User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
I would like to know if you guys who get over 14MPG. live in a state that mandates "air fuels" such as ethanol? I have gotten better mileage using non-ethanol fuel. However, it is hard to get and not worth the cost per gallon here in Minnesota.
If you are getting poor MPG try cleaning your mass airflow sensor. I increased my MPG from 10.5 to 13 for about $4.00. I'm sure that it has been mentioned before but I'll tell you again.
If however someone has any other inexpensive ideas on increasing economy (no snake oil venders please) I'd be interested. Thanks.
If you are getting poor MPG try cleaning your mass airflow sensor. I increased my MPG from 10.5 to 13 for about $4.00. I'm sure that it has been mentioned before but I'll tell you again.
If however someone has any other inexpensive ideas on increasing economy (no snake oil venders please) I'd be interested. Thanks.
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 762
Likes: 7
GAS MILEAGE with a V-10 while towing ?
Both my "toy" trailer ( the one I use to haul my V-12 Packard around in when I dont want to risk driving it) and my boat trailer with ( 28 ft. Bayliner - 10 ft beam) weigh about the same. Roughly 10,000 lbs.
I have found the on board computer "fuel flow" guage to be dead accurate. With this qualification - obviously, it measures fuel FLOW instantaneously, and AVERAGES OUT fuel flow over whatever time parameter you set it for.
I have found mileage as low as 3.5 mpg in the middle of pulling heavy grades against the wind. On the open road, OVERALL towing mileage runs around 8 mpg. This is a nice improvement over my '91 2500 Series Suburban (which is a 3/4 ton truck) (which, incidentally was only a "mouse" or "350"). That only got 4.5 - 5.5 mpg towing the exact same loads.
As a side note, (realize this isnt applicable to your question about mileage when TOWING) WITHOUT a towing load, on LEVEL roads with a TAIL wind, in overdrive, constant speed of around 60 mph, with my 3.73's, constant throttle, I have seen as high as 17 mpg on the on-board computer. I have good reason to believe, as I noted earlier, this is dead accurate. One slight problem. Slightest worsening of these ideal conditions, and UNloaded open-road mileage goes right back down to around 13 mpg.
Both my "toy" trailer ( the one I use to haul my V-12 Packard around in when I dont want to risk driving it) and my boat trailer with ( 28 ft. Bayliner - 10 ft beam) weigh about the same. Roughly 10,000 lbs.
I have found the on board computer "fuel flow" guage to be dead accurate. With this qualification - obviously, it measures fuel FLOW instantaneously, and AVERAGES OUT fuel flow over whatever time parameter you set it for.
I have found mileage as low as 3.5 mpg in the middle of pulling heavy grades against the wind. On the open road, OVERALL towing mileage runs around 8 mpg. This is a nice improvement over my '91 2500 Series Suburban (which is a 3/4 ton truck) (which, incidentally was only a "mouse" or "350"). That only got 4.5 - 5.5 mpg towing the exact same loads.
As a side note, (realize this isnt applicable to your question about mileage when TOWING) WITHOUT a towing load, on LEVEL roads with a TAIL wind, in overdrive, constant speed of around 60 mph, with my 3.73's, constant throttle, I have seen as high as 17 mpg on the on-board computer. I have good reason to believe, as I noted earlier, this is dead accurate. One slight problem. Slightest worsening of these ideal conditions, and UNloaded open-road mileage goes right back down to around 13 mpg.
Last edited by 6686L; Jul 27, 2007 at 10:11 AM.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 3
When i had some long flat roads in tenessee i was able to play with speed and MPG as reported by teh overhead consoule. The best i could get was at 55mph where i was very high 16s. By 60 we were in the mid 15s. 65 i was seeing mid/high 13s. 70mph i was at low 13s/high 12s. 75 i was bottom 12s maybe high 11s.
This was on a long very flat road and i went about 2 miles for each reading reseting after reaching the speed and holding steady for a few seconds with cruise control then reseting to get a reading. There was no noticable wind that day. Temp was high 80s and it was a lil humid at the time. 03 X V10 with 3.73s and all stock.
This was on a long very flat road and i went about 2 miles for each reading reseting after reaching the speed and holding steady for a few seconds with cruise control then reseting to get a reading. There was no noticable wind that day. Temp was high 80s and it was a lil humid at the time. 03 X V10 with 3.73s and all stock.
Freshman User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
I just made a trip from Reno on I-80 to Denver...We got 16.5 mpg at a steady 65mph going east. the DW calculated it out and was .1 lower then the overhead readout.Our Ex is a 2000, 4x4 v-10, 78,000, 4.30's, "D" tires @65psi..at 75 we lost 1 mpg down to 15.5 mpg..towing a 34 ft. airstream @ 7000 lbs going west to Reno from Denver we averaged 10 mpg..nothing has been done to the engine and we're very happy with this milage. We towed back @ 60 mph and EVERYBODY passed us but we didnt care.....