Gas mileage ?
- Thread starter Bronco635
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
jrc50
Full Access Members
Having had 4 Crown Vics in a row (2 were Crown Vic Sports (buckets, floor shift and interceptor package) with the 4.6 2cam I can say with about 600K miles experience (best was 184 before my wife totaled it; worst was 140K trans was slipping) I can say it was a very, very well built engine, not tremendous power but adequate and long long lasting. I also still own a 1998 Mustang Cobra Convertible I purchased new (wanted a break from Crown Vics for business) with a 4.6 4 cam all aluminum hand signed motor. It is just too much of a fun car to get rid of and is my "beater" around town. Will turn 7000 rpm, 4 bolt mains with provisions for 6 with a blower, Ford originally rated it for 157 mph. It has about 90 k on it but need to make a decision soon on it as I need to rebuild the front end and a variety of relatively minor items plus paint faded (Laser Red) in South Alabama sun (but not a lick of rust).
From what I have read the engine probably good for 160k if not beat.
The 3.5 Twin Turbo in the Expedition so far is quite smooth and good low end torque. I guess I would rather have the Turbos on a smaller displacement engine than GM's AFM (active fuel management) that goes to a V4 under low HP demand, the first 3 generations were reportedly rough on durability and caused oil usage.
We have a 2008 Lincoln MKZ with a 3.5 V6 (not Turbo). It has been a reliable car with good mileage and durability (130K so far). Does anyone know if this is the same engine assembly as in the Expedition minus the Turbos? Of course the MKZ is quite light so it doesn not pull much of a load, but only thing that died in the car to date was an air conditioning compressor at 75K.
From what I have read the engine probably good for 160k if not beat.
The 3.5 Twin Turbo in the Expedition so far is quite smooth and good low end torque. I guess I would rather have the Turbos on a smaller displacement engine than GM's AFM (active fuel management) that goes to a V4 under low HP demand, the first 3 generations were reportedly rough on durability and caused oil usage.
We have a 2008 Lincoln MKZ with a 3.5 V6 (not Turbo). It has been a reliable car with good mileage and durability (130K so far). Does anyone know if this is the same engine assembly as in the Expedition minus the Turbos? Of course the MKZ is quite light so it doesn not pull much of a load, but only thing that died in the car to date was an air conditioning compressor at 75K.
I think the new versions of the GM V8's get much better high way mileage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The GM 5.3l is now direct injection and 355hp and 383 torque. It is available this year, with optional E-assist. That option gives V6 mileage(18/22mpg).
My neighbor with a 2016 Suburban gets 23-24 mpg when he commutes 100 miles (highway) each way to work.
Pretty incredible given that it's a V8.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JExpedition07
That One Member
GMs active fuel management has proven to be very practical. Shutting off half the cylinders when it's not needed and you have all that displacement when you do. I prefer their method over Fords. It's pretty impressive 20+ mpg in a suburban. The engines are big enough as well that they don't need to struggle and require constant boost like Fords new engines which kill their longevity and Mileage. For me personally though.... it doesn't matter all that much... V8 with all cylinders rolling or V6 under boost mileage doesn't bother me.
Last edited:
I agree but have a question. Why do you say that Ford's V6 turbos kill their longevity? Are people experiencing this?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JExpedition07
That One Member
I don't have factual evidence to route you to but reading up the 3.5 doesn't seem like a motor that will go 350k plus miles like a naturally aspirated V8 will for you. Lots of Modular V8s, 6.2L and 5.0 coyotes with high mileage It seems pretty common. You don't see too many 3.5s up there on an original drivetrain. You can find guys with fords 6.2 with almost half a million miles on the original drivetrain over at the Ford Truck Enthusiest forum.
That makes total sense. Thanks for the response.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ExpeditionAndy
Full Access Members
The vast majority of owners rarely keep their vehicles much over 100K miles these days. Ford knows this so there is no need on their part to over engineer an engine to go farther, but with modern materials and manufacturing methods I don't see having any problems getting 200K out of my 3.5. Maintenance is the key to any modern engine, you can't neglect them like you could have with older engines, the tolerances are too tight and internal oil pressure is important to get the oil to where it needs to be.
Yes, I think you're right about that. Maintenance is super important. If you take care of your car, it will take care of you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A spooled up turbocharger builds some crazy RPMs, PSIs, and temps... NOT in the engine, which is what people usually misquote, but inside the turbocharger unit itself
Some turbos (not necessarily this one, just a number to give you a sense of scale) internally spool up to 250,000 rpm....yes, 250k rpm, as in 100+ times faster than highway engine speeds....
Turbos are also spooled by exhaust gasses... the mechanism is essentially to create a bottleneck and put a propeller turbine (think windmill) there...
Guess what? That creates heat, pressure, and mad rpms in the chokepoint.
All oooooh soooo NOT conducive to longevity
Some turbos get away with kicking in at a very high threshold only, or not boosting much at all.... but low-displacement, high power Twin Turbos aint like that. Much less on a heavy hunk of metal with the aerodynamics of a brick flying sideways, high road clearance, massive interior space with infinite potential for exceeding door jamb loadout instructions, AND an industrial grade tow rating to boot.
Ecoboost 3.5 is pretty much a variation on the design philosophy popularized by BMW 3series turbo engines (although THEIR "35's" are actually 2996cc inline sixes not 3500cc V6s)....except its implemented in a faaaaar more grueling application, and the things were never particularly known for longevity in the first place.
Oh well at least CBU shouldnt be as much of an issue...
Some turbos (not necessarily this one, just a number to give you a sense of scale) internally spool up to 250,000 rpm....yes, 250k rpm, as in 100+ times faster than highway engine speeds....
Turbos are also spooled by exhaust gasses... the mechanism is essentially to create a bottleneck and put a propeller turbine (think windmill) there...
Guess what? That creates heat, pressure, and mad rpms in the chokepoint.
All oooooh soooo NOT conducive to longevity
Some turbos get away with kicking in at a very high threshold only, or not boosting much at all.... but low-displacement, high power Twin Turbos aint like that. Much less on a heavy hunk of metal with the aerodynamics of a brick flying sideways, high road clearance, massive interior space with infinite potential for exceeding door jamb loadout instructions, AND an industrial grade tow rating to boot.
Ecoboost 3.5 is pretty much a variation on the design philosophy popularized by BMW 3series turbo engines (although THEIR "35's" are actually 2996cc inline sixes not 3500cc V6s)....except its implemented in a faaaaar more grueling application, and the things were never particularly known for longevity in the first place.
Oh well at least CBU shouldnt be as much of an issue...
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation, it will be interesting to watch this engine perform over time. I'm sure by this time next year we'll have plenty of data to predict longevity even better for this specific engine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ExpeditionAndy
Full Access Members
The EcoBoost has been around since 2010 or 2011 and there are many well over 150K out there. Early ones had issues but like the 5.4 Triton issues those issues have been corrected.
cullinan18
Full Access Members
To chime in on the thread title, I was recently driving back from Hannibal, MO and on flat highway at 70 mph (wife, 2 kids, myself, and overnight bags) was seeing on the computer over 22 mpg. I recent the trip computer while at 70, just to see what it would read. Every hill showed a incline and every decline showed an increase. But it seemed to settle a little over 22 mph cruising at that speed. I was very happy with that. I did not follow that up with fuel calculations, since it was a snapshot of the computer answer - for whatever it is worth.
(short WB, 4wd, 3.73)
(short WB, 4wd, 3.73)
ranger024x4
Active Member
Last weekend I went on a little road trip, put about 500 miles on my 16 in 3 days. Averaged 22mpg through out the entire trip including some city driving. When we origninally reached the destination, the computer showed 23.8mpg
Similar threads
