04-14-2012, 07:04 AM
|
#51 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MI, USA
Posts: 571
Thanks: 8
Thanked 73 Times in 50 Posts
|
Interesting that an oil change does not effect mpg? I personally have not seen a big difference changing the same oil, but what about with synthetic?
Anyway, 22mpg is a nice starting point , I bet you can hit 30mpg if you really tried, and maybe a couple of small aero mods.
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
04-14-2012, 08:47 AM
|
#52 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: US
Posts: 1,016
Chief - '06 Pontiac Grand Prix 90 day: 26.7 mpg (US) SF1 - '12 Ford Fiesta S 90 day: 30.95 mpg (US)
Thanks: 195
Thanked 247 Times in 190 Posts
|
The biggest difference is synthetic is better at low temperature and startup. Synthetic at the same weight (example 10W30) is not as thick at a low temperature. I have run conventional, semi and full synthetic. I have personally seen no measurable difference in fuel economy. I run full synthetic because of frequent starts and stops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangwill
Once a month, I put in some Lucas Fuel Injector Cleaner. I always notice a little bit of a difference when I do that.
|
Does the increased cost make it worth while?
|
|
|
04-14-2012, 01:13 PM
|
#53 (permalink)
|
Wiki Mod
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Midland MI, USA
Posts: 2,042
Thanks: 228
Thanked 304 Times in 210 Posts
|
I changed my car to synthetic and only noticed a marginal difference. it does help starting in the cold up north winters.
Get a scan gauge or equivalent, I went from 32 MPG to 40.2 MPG just by using the SG to change my driving habits. the SG saved me $276 in the first year. For you the same MPG jump would be about double the savings because of your lower MPG starting point.
Keep up the good work!
__________________
|
|
|
04-15-2012, 12:25 AM
|
#54 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MI, USA
Posts: 571
Thanks: 8
Thanked 73 Times in 50 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weather Spotter
I changed my car to synthetic and only noticed a marginal difference. it does help starting in the cold up north winters.
Get a scan gauge or equivalent, I went from 32 MPG to 40.2 MPG just by using the SG to change my driving habits. the SG saved me $276 in the first year. For you the same MPG jump would be about double the savings because of your lower MPG starting point.
Keep up the good work!
|
Agreed, I went from low to mid 30s to low 40s by mainly the scan gauge ^.^
|
|
|
04-15-2012, 01:45 AM
|
#55 (permalink)
|
1993 Mustang LX 2.3L
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 18
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
What does a scan guage do exactly? Will it work on a older model car like mine?
|
|
|
04-15-2012, 06:52 AM
|
#56 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,096
Thanks: 2,907
Thanked 2,571 Times in 1,594 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangwill
What does a scan guage do exactly? Will it work on a older model car like mine?
|
A Scangauge will not work with your car due to its age but an MPGuino will. Check out the instrumentation section of the forum, we have a member that makes them himself and sells them at very reasonable prices.
You don't need to clean the injectors so often, maybe every year or two should be fine. Use that $5 to buy some coroplast and make some aero-mods.
|
|
|
04-15-2012, 08:28 PM
|
#57 (permalink)
|
Intermediate EcoDriver
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Arizona - It's a DRY cold..
Posts: 671
Thanks: 163
Thanked 129 Times in 102 Posts
|
Welcome aboard, Mustangwill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps2fixer
...Anyway, 22mpg is a nice starting point , I bet you can hit 30mpg if you really tried, and maybe a couple of small aero mods.
|
I agree. 30mpg is a realistic goal with a 2.3 liter Mustang.
__________________
Fuel economy is nice, but sometimes I just gotta put the spurs to my pony!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguitarguy
Just 'cuz you can't do it, don't mean it can't be done...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh
The presence of traffic is the single most complicating factor of hypermiling. I know what I'm going to do, it's contending with whatever the hell all these other people are going to do that makes things hard.
|
|
|
|
04-30-2012, 10:05 PM
|
#58 (permalink)
|
1993 Mustang LX 2.3L
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 18
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I have noticed that the more miles I use on a tank, the mpg changes. Shouldn't the mpg stay the same, or even be close, if I haven't changed my style of driving. The only change being the distance I put on the tank?
On a more positive note, I got 26 mpg on this tank ^_^
|
|
|
04-30-2012, 10:16 PM
|
#59 (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
|
When that engine wears out, Some Rangers came with a milder version of the 2.3 that has better emissions and 8 spark plugs (4 in the exhaust ports), and a 1.9 will also bolt in place of your existing 2.3, as will a 3.0V6. The added torque of the 3.0 will give you cruising power at much lower RPM, and may or may not give you a chance to get better FE (I'm gonna say no, though.)
My ex's father is getting 22-24 in his Ranger under "normal" driving, that has a 3.0 EFI in it. I'm not sure if there was a carb version of the 3.0, but AFAIK, the 2.8 carb will also bolt up, but I'm not positive on that.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
Last edited by Christ; 04-30-2012 at 10:21 PM..
|
|
|
05-01-2012, 05:19 AM
|
#60 (permalink)
|
Eco-ventor
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,645
Thanks: 76
Thanked 709 Times in 450 Posts
|
Quote:
I have noticed that the more miles I use on a tank, the mpg changes.
|
Maybe you have a leak close to the top of the tank?
__________________
2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
|
|
|
|