Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-13-2011, 08:34 AM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryland View Post
What do you use this truck for? any idea how it handles towing? did it come with any kind of stock belly pan?
I do agree with slowing down, after all we live in a state where the highest speed limit is 65mph
I just hate going under the speed limit (or over it) - limits 70 mph in Minnesota, 65 in Wisconsin

I don't tow much with it but we did use it to move a tractor that brought the gcw up to 13,000 pounds. It handled that excellently but I didn't think of resetting the fuel economy display until the BOTTOM of the hill lol...

I have a picture of the underside of it, Ford seems to have gone through some effort with this one. I'll post it when I get to a real computer

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-13-2011, 09:10 AM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 403

Sweetie - '11 Hyundai Sonata GLS
90 day: 39.35 mpg (US)

My Miles - '03 Combo GLS/KLX/Ninja
90 day: 40.49 mpg (US)

Sipper' - '04 Kawasaki Ninja 250
90 day: 74.98 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 37 Times in 28 Posts
You save 7.5 seconds per mile going 70 vs 60, but you loose money doing so.

Your absolute biggest gains will come from slowing down.

You also know that those 'in dash' mpg computers are optimistic in most vehicles?....
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 09:20 AM   #13 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
It's dead on accurate in this one - if I fill up at the same gas station using the same pump handle, the fuel usage on the display matches the fuel pump exactly. It's got a returnless fuel system which probably helps with that.

Pictures of the bottom -
The large smiley hole in the bumper is for the CAC


The plastic at the top of the picture is the bottom of the air dam, below that is a piece of rubber going from the air dam to the front of the engine bay skid plate


My attempt at taking a picture of the entire bottom


Picture of it from the front - The license plate on this model is moved off to the side to allow air to pass through the bumper. If you open the hood, the radiator takes up the entire grille from top to bottom and left to right (the horizontal section is open, the vertical section is shaped like a funnel to push air into the horizontal section), with the Charge Air Cooler the width of the hole in the bumper, and in front of and below the radiator

Last edited by p38fln; 04-13-2011 at 09:45 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 09:51 AM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
It's got so much fuel saving crap in the engine itself that it's kind of surprising the fuel economy is so terrible - (And, the fun part is watching eyes bug WAY out on regular pickup truck owners as they think I have lost my mind)

Twin, Independent, Variable Camshaft Timing - It can adjust the timing on the intake and exhaust cams for fuel efficiency, or overlap them to get the EGR effect required for emissions
Direct fuel injection - supposed to give it a cleaner more efficient burn. Fuel pressure is up to 2,500 PSI
Turbocharged - I assume everyone knows what this is for
Electronic throttle control - Supposed to make it a bit harder for a driver to snap the throttle open. The engine computer tries to figure out what you really meant and adjusts the throttle for you.
Electric Power Assisted-Steering - Purely for fuel economy. The downside is due to the massive weight of a F-150, the alternator had to be beefed up to 217 amps, but Ford still says it pulls less engine power than the power-steering pump.
Small displacement engine - When not boosted, the engine is supposed to get the same fuel efficiency as a 3.5 liter V-6. It's REALLY hard to keep it from boosting (Also, Ford kinda forgot to put in a boost gauge, and they soundproofed the truck too well - only way to know if its boosting is to roll down the window and see if you can hear a turbo or not)
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 10:04 AM   #15 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Re:f fuel economy computers -

I concur with op here... The '08 Savanna 2500 I usually drive for work, the fuel economy gauge is typically correct at the pump. If not, they're within a tenth, not bad when you're talking about 16 mpg over 200-300 miles of mixed driving.
__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 09:32 PM   #16 (permalink)
sid
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 202

grayranger - '10 Ford Ranger XL 2 door supercab
90 day: 32.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 27
Thanked 48 Times in 28 Posts
Quote:
How on earth did anyone manage to get 30 MPG out of a V-6 Ranger? I couldn't ever break the 20 MPG mark with mine...I hit it once or twice with some very careful driving, but its average was closer to 9 in the city (Where I do 99% of my driving) and 16 on the highway.
I never got 30 mpg, but I consistently got 25 mpg on the highway and 21 around town in my old 1999 six cylinder 4WD extended cab Ranger without trying too hard. In fact, with the commercial grade aluminum topper, plywood bedliner, and all the tools and camping gear I always carried around then, the truck was typically carrying an extra 900 pounds additional weight, besides me.
__________________
2010 Ford Ranger, extra cab, 2.3 liter
http://www.stonemarmot.com

Band's latest song/music video "Black Hole Jezebel"
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 09:39 PM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
First, a little more info on the driving environment here - I went to Taco Bell and back today, about 3.5 miles one way. I reset the MPG thing in the dash before I left and before I came back. The trip there, I got 16.2 MPG.
For the return trip, I got 32.2 MPG. Fairly nasty hill to get there.


Second, I'm still extremely impressed - how different was it from the Ranger I had?

Here's the best picture I have of it - 2003 FX4 Extended cab, EPA estimate on it is 17 MPG on the highway and some ridiculously low number city
(4.0 liter 207 HP V-6, 4.10 LS, 4x4)

Last edited by p38fln; 04-13-2011 at 09:46 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 09:41 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,020 Times in 1,303 Posts
I averaged 18 local and 20 highway in my 99 Ford stripper V6 manual, and that was building a house and hauling up to a ton of stuff, enough to put the rear axle 1 inch from the bump stops, with just me a and less than 5 gallons of fuel.

The 99 weighed 3800 empty.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 09:43 PM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 79

Escape #2 - '13 Ford Escape Titanium

C-max - '17 Ford C-Max SE
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Wow they've put on weight over the years!
Mine weighs 5,800 pounds empty

*edit - or are you talking about a Ranger? Mine weighed in around 4500 pounds, it was a V-6 automatic 4x4
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2011, 11:33 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Kodak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 346

Canyon - '07 GMC Canyon 2wd regular cab
90 day: 24.95 mpg (US)
Thanks: 41
Thanked 39 Times in 24 Posts
Short trips will definitely have that effect on mpg, because you spend a proportionally longer time with a cold engine than someone with a longer trip.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com